/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11550010
Because you're not a conspiracy theorist.

>>11550010
Because of gravity and heat

>>11550010
they're not solid concrete stumps
perimeter columns and a core in the center, connected by huge empty floors
planes damaged the columns, load no longer evenly distributed, fire weakens the rest and it reaches a tipping point where it can no longer carry the titanic load of the upper building
collapse starts and like a massive freight train there's no stopping it
the vast empty floors void of columns offer little resistance to the blob of debris falling down like an unstoppable freight train
the blob of debris gouges out the insides of the building, and the perimeter columns peel off

the core still stands, but the damage suffered during the collapse and especially as the blob of debris slams into the ground, causes it to collapse on its own around 10 seconds later, core collapse starts near the bottom so it's likely the latter that's to blame

>>11550010
>19 years and still asking the wrong question
It's not how. It's who and why and what is the fallout.
It's so long ago and disconnected from your attention span you've forgotten to even ask why you're invading Syria

>>11550010
How where they supposed to fall?

>>11550010
The planes were rather well aimed, had they hit more to the side of the structures the portions of the towers above the impact points likely would have fallen much more beyond the building footprints and resulted in greater damage to the surrounding area.

>>11550064
The reason why they have specialist who do building demolitions is because you've got to know the right places to blast to make a building collapse inside its own footprint, and not take out adjacent blocks.

>>11550107
So how do skyscrapers fall without carefully placed demolition charges?
https://youtu.be/XwoBRHDLxdo?t=14

>>11550162
Gravity?

>two planes
>three towers

explain this unironically

>>11551037
Plane make big tower fall on little tower. Big fire make towers go boom.

>>11551059
so tower 7 collapsed because one of the wtc 1&2 towers fell on it?

>>11551082
Pieces of WTC 1 fall on WTC 7 and make fire.

>>11550010
There's only one way we can empirically test this, but I won't say it because I don't wanna get v&.

https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests

>>11551484
The paper is fake.

https://youtu.be/7OClixCTdDw

>>11550162
That building was a squat. It was incredibly poorly maintained. It is not comparable to either of the Twin Towers, which were built like steel tree trunks, and certainly not WTC7, which was not hit by a plane and did not burn anything like what we see in that video.

>>11550092
One did go through a corner. And, as pointed out before, WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

>>11551499
Not so. In fact, it disproves the NIST report.

>>11551059
>>11551086
This is the childishness of the Bin Laden conspiracy buffs.

>>11551499
kys you shill
https://youtu.be/KOooHlaA0pE
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

>>11550092
>The planes were rather well aimed,
You don't say.
>At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control Center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and Dave Bottiglia, who was handling both Flight 11 and Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."[2] At 08:58, the plane was over New Jersey at 28,500 feet, heading toward New York City. In the five minutes from approximately 08:58 when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City until the moment of impact, the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[14] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."[16]

https://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

>>11552974
The reason it's unheard of is that it's uncomfortable, somewhat dangerous and guaranteed to scare the passengers. Not because it's difficult to make plane go down.

>>11553013
>flying a plane into a building
>somewhat dangerous
you don't say

>>11550010
In my experience eople don't seem to understand the scale of the individual structural units compared to the overall size of the building. They don't understand why a large building collapses differently from something smaller.

Imagine if you built a model of the wtc in your living room with tookpicks, it's that fragile. The reason it stands up is 100+ mph winds are light flutters at full scale. Now imagine someone throwing a toy plane into it that's also light weight but moving pretty fast.

Anyway, if the toothpicks are damaged, and the remaining (steel analogous) toothpicks are heated up until they bend and buckle, they are no longer distribution the load straight down to the next toothpick, it's going diagonal until they snap. Both the supports in the core and external supports were damage. Most of the WTC's structure is external so the giant hole made by the plane can be taken at face value. It wasn't superficial damage to the building, it was critical.

Once a single floor fails, the bottom of the falling section cannot possibly line up and catch the weight, everything hits a floor supported by shitty trusses only designed to hold up one floor of the building, not 3/4 of the entire building.

>>11553033
this is the most unscientific load of shit.
There is a special place in hell for you people

>>11553047
you think a fucking jet plane flying into a skyscraper is a less plausible explanation than a vast governmental conspiracy to demolish the towers, for which NO solid evidence has emerged in 20 years despite the internet existing as the perfect vector for anonymous dissemination - everyone just kept perfectly quiet about it. ok

>>11553047
The worst I've seen, and the people I'm talking about, is a youtube video where a guy presented a school bus pointed vertically and he sawed a section out. He considered the fact that the rest of the bus wouldn't be crushed by the separated top section meaningful. People I talk to that suspect a demolition job just flat out expect way too much out of the structure. Skyscrapers are engineered to barely stand up in their environment using as little material as safely possible, with individual units light enough to lift with equipment that's much smaller than the building.

The only way to get the performance conspiracy theorists expect is to have a concrete core, but WTC wasn't that kind of building.

>>11553054
asymetric damage without the theoretical energy density cannot cause a symmetrical building to fall at free fall speed through the path of most resistance into its own footprint.
There is tonnes of evidence it was controlled demolition

additionally no plan hit wtc >>11552786

and the nist report is the most clown world thing I have ever seen, it is such a blatant lie anyone with the slightest education should be calling for blood

You are fucking disgrace to humanity

>>11553065
kys you piece of shit you unironically deserve death
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

>>11553074
>path of most resistance
Nigger, did you forget about gravity? It pulls things down to the ground.

>>11553077
What are you even sperging about?

>>11553074
>asymetric damage without the theoretical energy density cannot cause a symmetrical building

An asymmetrically damaged building is no longer a symmetrical building

Please fix the flaws in your sentences so I can at least get to flaws in your arguments

>>11553115
>>11553121
you will get what you deserve in the end

>>11553127
>forfeiting immortality to believe the official wtc collapse story

Do people really do this?

>>11552643
How does it disprove the NIST report?

>>11552786
Is this supposed to respond to anything in the video? Try again.

>>11552646
I'm just speaking at a level schizos like you can understand.

>>11550064
>>>/wsg/3298062

>>11553220
https://www.metabunk.org/mirror/www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

>>11553318
didn't read

>>11553329
Awesome, I love it when schizos give up the debate and admit their retarded delusions are wrong.

>>11552646
Bin laden denied involvement until like 2004

>>11552974
Yet somehow, some filthy Muslims were able to fly planes like maverick from top gun

>>11553013
That is extremely difficult to do. It’s top gun tier. Descending that quickly and hitting a building that size at just the right spot to collapse is pretty good for a shitskin foreigner who had only been in the US 2 months

>>11553033
If you look at that picture how were the middle support columns not partially standing after the collapse?

>>11550024
This, concrete floors clipped to outer tube wall. Once the mass of a few floors fell, floor clips of lower floors failed forming a caged debris column in an outer tube wall. Grid type framing has a different failure mode.

>>11550010
>get ready for a bunch of people acting like experts without having seen the blueprints of the building.
>get prepared for not one single i don't know.
>get prepared for /x/

>>11553362
ok NWO agent

>>11550010
you would think the building would of toppled over at the point of entry where the plain hit and began burning the building to compromise it structural integrity. im not saying trying flying a plane into a sky scraper to see if it works the same as before but i think you have enough common sense to get what happened here. ever chop a tree down? try that instead.

>>11550024
study building implosions gone wrong and have your mind blown. if you don't blow up a building equal on all sides it topples over. the secret is they had to implode the building to reduce collateral damage on the side. if they would of toppled over it would of been way way worse then what it was.

>>11553372
More likely it was idf

>>11553415
If the building toppled over there would have been a shit ton of casualties on the streets

>>11553386
Monkeys can't jet fuel beans.

let see you explain the dancing Israelis, moloch worshipping scums

>>11553433
There is no need to explain what isn't true.

>>11553121
>An asymmetrically damaged building is no longer a symmetrical building
that is what compromises is structural integrity to make it fall over which was the point he was trying to make.

>>11553415
>the secret is they had to implode the building to reduce collateral damage on the side.

why would a mass murder plot mitigate collateral damage lmao

>>11553127
>in the end
is it over yet?
>>11553137
>Do people really do this?
some people are full on nuts.

>>11553415
Please kill yourself

>>11553380
The thick sections are elevator shafts

Regardless they were pulverized. It's not like only the edges of the building came down and I dont know if they could stand then.

>>11553421
building crushed, roads blocked off, many killed. yeah it would of been full blown crazy.
>>11553490
the explosives were already there for security measures in case of such a event.

>>11553499
how polite of you. no go fuck yourself asshole.

It was controlled demolition to go to war in Afghanistan so the elites could make money. Period.

>why did a couple of hollow buildings collapse from being set fire to?
That being said, there must have been some sort of government assistance.

>>11553377
>just the right spot to collapse
Both towers collapsed despite being hit in different spots. The entire point of every pilot's existence is to navigate planes down through a window that's only slightly wider than the plane itself, it's called a runway, and nobody is ever surprised when their plane makes it across the ocean to land on a specific one.
>>11552974
>That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet
So was crashing one into a building.

>>11553380
They were

>>11552638
>noooo it was different
retard, just give up

I like how nobody is even mentioning WTC 7, let alone given a plausible explanation as to why it would have collapsed

>>11550010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o

>>11554089
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

>>11553513
>the explosives were already there for security measures in case of such a event.

>>11553555
>It was controlled demolition
Proof?

>>11553567
>there must have been some sort of government assistance.
Proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVYpZeH3Cqw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdRmnk6Q1VI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxF4HL-kIfo


Best 9/11 truth doc by far. I dare you guys to even answer 1 of the 50 questions posed.

https://youtu.be/VuT334NEmR8

>>11554350
>I dare you
no, you bore me

>>11554350
>I dare you guys to even answer 1 of the 50 questions posed.
>Where are the interceptors?
Read pages 14-35: https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

>>11554345
Just look at how the towers fell including WTC 7, it's exactly how controlled demolition is supposed happen. Fire and jet fuel also cannot heat up enough to melt metal, but thermite (used in controlled demolitions) can. There was evidence of melted metal beams on ground zero. There's also eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions above, on the same floor, and below them at different times. The owner of the towers, Larry Silverstein, also happened to be out for a dermatology appointment on the day of 9/11.

There's just too many coincidences that happened on that day for it simply to be a hijacked airplane. The government needed something to convince the public to go to war in Afghanistan, "the war on terrorism", so that the elites could make money.

>>11554010
It was different tho.

>>11553191
Watch the video on the report. Their model closely corresponds to collapse. The model from the NIST report doesn't and was made to prove their presupposed conclusions.

>>11555555

>>11553193
Ad hominem
You're not on my level.

>>11553033
You don't understand the concept of light refraction.

>>11554004
This is incredibly dishonest. We have video footage of these things crumbling to dust. And compared to what the actual core collumns looked like, that is a little stump.

>>11554334
>Wikipedia
gtfo

>>11550010
>I'm not a conspiracy theorist
you're now

>>11555412
Thermite has been debunked. The most comprehensive explanation for how the towers were destroyed is presented by Heinz Pommer, a German Nuclear Physicists. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu_bCod3aEY

>>11555621

>>11555622
Demolition charges may have been present in the TT, as they were in WTC7, but it was NOT thermite that collapsed them. WTC was a NUCLEAR demolition. https://www.bitchute.com/video/jjZDRGEyWin5/

>>11550024

How do you explain the fact that they turned to dust and collapsed into their own foot print? Have you ever actually seen footage of the event? Were you old enough to have seen it? I was actually alive and remember exactly where I was when we watched it on TV. It literally made no sense to anyone who was watching it. Jet fuel may have started a fire but it can't turn buildings into fucking dust in a matter of seconds. Do you realize there was almost no debris left over? Have you ever seen pictures of ground zero after they collapsed?

>>11555622

>>11555412
>Just look at how the towers fell including WTC 7, it's exactly how controlled demolition is supposed happen.
Yeah exactly like controlled demolition except for the fact that the tops of the towers tilted over as they collapsed instead of falling straight down, there was no ejection of debris at the moment of collapse like there would be from a controlled demolition, there was no sound of explosion at the moment of collapse. So basically it's nothing like a controlled demolition.

>Fire and jet fuel also cannot heat up enough to melt metal
What metal was melted? You don't need to melt metal for it to be weakened enough to not be able to hold its load.

>but thermite (used in controlled demolitions) can.
Thermite is not used in controlled demolitions. It's basically impossible for you to cut large steel columns with thermite. Where are you getting this misinformation?

>There was evidence of melted metal beams on ground zero.
The only "melted" metal beams were from workers cutting beams with torches in order to clear debris after the collapse.

>There's also eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions above, on the same floor, and below them at different times.
Source?

>The owner of the towers, Larry Silverstein, also happened to be out for a dermatology appointment on the day of 9/11.
So what?

>There's just too many coincidences that happened on that day for it simply to be a hijacked airplane.
You only mentioned one coincidence.

>The government needed something to convince the public to go to war in Afghanistan, "the war on terrorism", so that the elites could make money.
Pic related.

>>11555571
>Watch the video on the report.
Yes, watch >>11551499

>Their model closely corresponds to collapse.
Their model is fake, it's a clumsily hand drawn animation that they falsely claim is dynamic analysis.

>The model from the NIST report doesn't and was made to prove their presupposed conclusions.
How does it not correspond to the collapse?

>>11555584
>This is the childishness of the Bin Laden conspiracy buffs.
>Ad hominem
Yes, I'm clearly not on your level of stupidity and lack of awareness.

>>11555605
>claims no one has given an explanation
>is given explanation
>whines about the source

>>11555621
>>11555622
>>11555645
Schizos fighting each other is pretty entertaining.

>>11553370
That's weird. Benazir Bhutto said he died around 2002.

>>11555655
>How do you explain the fact that they turned to dust
Things tend to turn to dust when they are crushed by massive weights from above or from impact when falling from large heights.

>and collapsed into their own foot print?
Why would they not collapse into their own footprint?

>It literally made no sense to anyone who was watching it.
Is this supposed to be an argument? It made no sense to me! Therefore it only makes sense that it's X!

>Jet fuel may have started a fire but it can't turn buildings into fucking dust in a matter of seconds.
So a fire can't weaken the structural integrity of the building? And weakening the structural integrity of the building can't lead to it collapsing? And the building collapsing can't cause impacts that pulverize the debris? Just tell me which part "can't" happen.

>Do you realize there was almost no debris left over?
LOL.

>>11555693
Woah! Cool it with the anti-semitism.

>>11555719
>A is predisposed to B
>therefore saying someone has B is an attack on A
Nice schizo logic.

>>11553377
No it's not. Go play a flight simulator. You can see buildings like that from extremely far away, and it's not hard to just point yourself at them.

reminder that the saudi did 9/11, and the US govt coverer it up
https://28pages.org/about-2/

>>11550010
9/11 violated the law of physics

>>11555706

Weakened structure doesn't make buildings go *poof*- it knocks them over. These buildings were not knocked over- they went *poof* and collapsed into their own footprint with very little debris relative to the mass of the buildings.

Not to mention building 7 also collapsing into its own footprint as well, unexplained.

Pentagon building despite allegedly being hit by a plane, had almost no debris from the plane left in tact, which again, can't be explained by fucking jet fuel.

Disappointing how blue pilled /sci/ is on 9/11. You can scream schizo all you want but the fact remains that the official narrative for 9/11 doesn't match with the evidence from each of the crime scenes.

Link worth checking out for those interested.

https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury

>>11555672
You
>except for the fact that the tops of the towers tilted over as they collapsed instead of falling straight down
Also you:
>Why would they not collapse into their own footprint?
Only one of the towers started to tilt, as it fell. It tilted at an angle of greater than 20 degrees, then it inexplicably stopped tilting and started to fall straight down. If you have a physics background you can calculate how much energy would be required to over come the inertia and stop this tilt from happening. It is significant.
So, where did the energy come from? From jet fuel?

>>11555683
More ad hominem, because you lack an argument.
>>11555693
We're sharing information and attempting to get to the truth of the matter, unlike you. If you believe that a bunch of Islamic cave dwellers were capable of carrying out the most sophisticated terror attack of all time, then your grip on reality is less tenuous than that of a schizophrenic. You are the conspiracy theorist.
>>11555685
Not the same guy, you schizo.
>>11555679
The model is based on finite analysis, it is a legitimate model. The NIST report model deviates from the observed collapse after a few seconds and once it deviates, the model is terminated. We never see the entire collapse modelled by NIST, because it was a fake.

>>11555937
>Weakened structure doesn't make buildings go *poof*-
The towers didn't go poof.

>it knocks them over.
The towers were knocked over, pic related. Have you even looked at the collapse?

>These buildings were not knocked over- they went *poof*
Wrong.

>with very little debris relative to the mass of the buildings.
Wrong.

>Not to mention building 7 also collapsing into its own footprint as well, unexplained.
Why are you lying? WTC 7 was on fire for hours and then collapsed.

>Pentagon building despite allegedly being hit by a plane, had almost no debris from the plane left in tact, which again, can't be explained by fucking jet fuel.
Why are you lying? There was plenty of debris from the plane.

>>11556020
>You
>>except for the fact that the tops of the towers tilted over as they collapsed instead of falling straight down
>Also you:
>>Why would they not collapse into their own footprint?
Where do you see a contradiction? In their own footprint doesn't mean all the debris was literally inside the original borders of the building, plenty of debris fell out into the street and hit neighboring buildings. But you already know this, so you're just being obtuse.

>Only one of the towers started to tilt, as it fell.
Nope, both started to collapse asymetrically. The top of both towers fell behind the perimeter columns at an angle. This does not occur in a controlled demolition.

>then it inexplicably stopped tilting and started to fall straight down.
It was always falling straight down, it's called gravity. It would only topple over if the pieces kept their structural integrity but that clearly didn't happen since the tops of the towers separated from the perimeter columns.

>If you have a physics background you can calculate how much energy would be required to over come the inertia and stop this tilt from happening. It is significant.
Yeah please show the calculations of energy that ignore the structural integrity of the building so I can have a good laugh. This is a dynamic analysis problem requiring a complex simulation, not something that can be solved by a calculation.

>>11556038
>The model is based on finite analysis
It's not based on any analysis, it's literally a hand drawn animation. You got scammed.

>The NIST report model deviates from the observed collapse after a few seconds and once it deviates, the model is terminated.
How does it deviate? You didn't answer my question because you're just pulling shit out of your ass.

>>11556533
Pic related.

>>11556038
>More ad hominem, because you lack an argument.
This >>11552646 is you responding to my argument with ad hominem and no argument, and then you complain when I respond in kind. It's hilarious how you schizos always lack self awareness and make compete hypocrites of yourselves.

>>11556038
>We're sharing information and attempting to get to the truth of the matter
>it was thermite
>nah it was a nuclear bomb
Yeah really great "information." Two explanations that can't explain anything and that there is no evidence for.

>>11550010
because planes hit them

>>11556589
Don't compare us schizos to conspiratards. We're at least not as crazy and unselfaware as these freaks.

>>11556583
You:
> the tops of the towers tilted over as they collapsed instead of falling straight down
Also you:
>It was always falling straight down
Heads up Mossad, one of you bots is malfunctioning again.
>It would only topple over if the pieces kept their structural integrity
Define "pieces" in this context. If you are talking about the upper section of the building, explain how it lost its integrity. Please provide video evidence.
>calculations of energy that ignore the structural integrity
Explain why you think "structural integrity" is vital for a calculation that is purely based on Newton's First or Third Laws of Motion (depending on the case).
>This is a dynamic analysis problem requiring a complex simulation, not something that can be solved by a calculation.
Wrong. If you are interested merely in describing how the top of the building prevented itself from toppling completely during its freefall, then force and inertia are all that you woul require, unless you have evidence of some structural mechanics within the building which would account for it, in which case PRESENT IT.

>>11556584
>It's not based on any analysis, it's literally a hand drawn animation.
Wrong. The NIST model was proven false. I've seen the criticisms of the University of Alaska research and they have all been debunked. If you had properly researched this, you would know that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhRoTC5NAn8
>How does it deviate?
From my earlier post:
>NIST report model deviates from the observed collapse
WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT YOU FUCKTARD?

>>11556589
Your original posta were disrespectful, so I was able to make a valid characterisation about you. If you take offense to being called a conspiracy theorist, then you would do well not to label others in a worse fashion.

>>11556533
>The towers didn't go poof.
Denial.
>The towers were knocked over>> The towers fell into their own footprint>> the towers tilted
Your grip on reality is paper thin.
>Very little debris relative to the mass of the buildings
>Wrong
The amount of visible wreckage of the buildings in the aftermath of the collapse is far less than was contained within the buildings themselves. This appears obvious from the video footage. Therefore, you have to explain how it appears to be reduced.
>There was plenty of debris from the plane.
This post, that pic. You are a troll poster, admit it. You have to be.

>WTC was a NUCLEAR demolition

>>11558371
>> the tops of the towers tilted over as they collapsed instead of falling straight down
>Also you:
>>It was always falling straight down
Why are you being obtuse? The first statement is talking about the angle of the building's walls while the second is talking about the direction of its velocity.

>Define "pieces" in this context. If you are talking about the upper section of the building, explain how it lost its integrity. Please provide video evidence.
Read the NIST report. https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/world-trade-center-disaster-study

>Explain why you think "structural integrity" is vital for a calculation that is purely based on Newton's First or Third Laws of Motion (depending on the case).
I didn't say it's vital for whatever calculation you're talking about, I'm saying any such a simplistic calculation is insufficient for modeling the collapse.

>Wrong.
Wrong. See >>11551499

>If you are interested merely in describing how the top of the building prevented itself from toppling completely during its freefall
You don't seem to understand that toppling completely would only occur if one side of the building held its integrity and presented resistance to the weight above while the other side didn't. But that didn't occur.

>>11558371
Let me break it down for you since don't seem to even know the basics of what you're arguing against.

1. Fire caused the steel trusses connecting the core columns to the perimeter columns to expand and sag.

2. As the fire loses fuel the truss cools and shrinks. This pulls the perimeter columns inward towards the core columns.

Both the sagging of the floor and the bowing of the perimeter columns before collapse can be seen in numerous videos. It's not up for debate and thermite or whatever other bullshit you can imagine can't explain progressive bowing of the perimeters.

3. Once the perimeter columns bend, they are no longer resisting weight in the same direction as gravity. Load is transferred from the outside of the building towards the middle, to the core columns and trusses, which causes the top of the building to tilt.

4. At this point collapse is inevitable because the fire-weakened core columns and trusses cannot hold the load. So the top of the building falls straight down into its own footprint.

>>11558390
>Wrong. The NIST model was proven false.
I keep asking you how it's wrong and you fail every time to answer.

>I've seen the criticisms of the University of Alaska research and they have all been debunked.
Where have they been debunked?

>WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT YOU FUCKTARD?
I asked you how it deviates and your response is to quote you saying that it deviates. You've avoided the question so many times that at this point I can just assume you have no answer.

>>11558401
>Your original posta were disrespectful, so I was able to make a valid characterisation about you.
And you failed to respond to them with anything substantive, making you a hypocrite.

>>11558418
>Denial.
Denial.

>Your grip on reality is paper thin.
Denial.

>The amount of visible wreckage of the buildings in the aftermath of the collapse is far less than was contained within the buildings themselves.
Source?

>This appears obvious from the video footage.
I don't believe what appears obvious to you is necessarily true. I also don't think you are capable of realizing the significance of what you're not seeing in a video.

>This post, that pic.
Huh? I don't even know why you're arguing that only *some* debris was found. Are you arguing that the government spread pieces of the plane and body parts over the grass and in the building, but didn't use the entire plane? What the fuck are you even arguing? LOL.

>>11555600
It's between a third and half the height of the building, and they were present in both collapses. They didn't crumble to dust it was shaken loose as the cores fell further. Poor video quality and artefacts are responsible for giving tin foilers room for interpretation.

>>11553380

North Tower core and perimeter after the floorplates have been ripped away by the debris avalanche

>>11558418
>you have to explain how it appears to be reduced
Most of the concrete and glass in the buildings was pulverized by the collapse and spread out over Manhattan. If you refer back to when the buildings weren't occupied yet >>11553033 you'll notice there's a lot less to them than meets the eye. There were also a few levels below the buildings (a large mall was housed there) that caved in and provided extra volume for the wreckage to settle in.

>>11558668
Yep this. The basement was 7 storeys deep and covered 16 acres. You can see the pancaked mass of floor plates.

This statement >>11551499 is fake.

>>11550024
This

>>11553415
Well the story isn't that it imploded, is it?


>>11555655
The fire lingered for minutes before the damaged core collapsed under weight of the floors on top. Seeing as it's a pretty fucking tall building the engineers had the foresight to ensure it would collapse down instead of over. Kinda like a car engine collapsing under the passenger cabin even though that whole system weakens your cars structural integrity.

>>11558503
> would only occur if one side of the building held its integrity
Now I understand you. Thanks for being patient. In order for us to see the top of the building falling straight down at that angle, the bottom integrity would have to fail. Correct? And it would have to fail with minimal resistance. Correct? How did that failure occur? The answers provided here are insufficient for such a collapse.>>11558523

>I keep asking you how it's wrong and you fail every time to answer.
The University of Alaska model went through the process of cutting columns in WTC7, until we see a collapse that mirrors what we saw in news media footage on that day i.e. straight down. The NIST report model proceeds by postulating a column failure low down in the building, caused by fires. As the collapse proceeds, in their model, we see a noticeable crumpling of the building and a shift towards the North. This deviates from what we saw on that day. As the model deviates, the model is cut, because the end result, would not have been the perfect collapse of its building into its footprint, but rather a mess collapse into neightbouring buildings. Anyone viewing this model to the end would have to determine that it was not accurate. This is all in the UA report.

tldr See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOooHlaA0pE&t=1920s

>Where have they been debunked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOooHlaA0pE

>>11550010
Why would they fall in any other way? Once one floor gives in everything just crumbles straight down. They were skyscrapers, not some 5 story concrete building.

>>11555593
What are the mediums of varying density?

You sound like a flat earther. You offload thinking to buzzwords and can't explain anything you believe, then pretend it's others that can't comprehend.

>>11559104
>Well the story isn't that it imploded, is it?
the story is shit and you know it. this is literally the moment the feds took over our lives and turned the country into a spy state to watch all their people and rob them blind while acting like they are some fucking heros. fuck this shit im out.

>>11559201
Sorry, I meant diffraction.

>>11556617
thank you for your service of taking your meds

>>11559217
This is a gross miscategorisation of the arguments.

Question for all of you that still talk to conspiracy theorists:

What benefit is there to anyone for changing a conspiracy theorist's mind? What important thing are they going to do with their lives because you were convincing enough to correct them?

>>11559223
Because Bin Laden's name needs to be cleared and the true perpetrators of the Israeli World Trade Center Attack need to be brought to justice.

>>11559223
Because conspiracy theorists bring forth arguments that are simply wrong but can sound very reasonable to a layman, possibly convincing them to believe these theories as well. One should stop these theories from spreading.

>>11559234
>but can sound very reasonable to a layman

Then they just enter the conspiracy theorist category and nothing happens because not enough people are that dumb

It's like how herd immunity still works because all you need is a majority and not everyone. Even a minority is enough, as 20% of the population is responsible for 80% of human progress.

>>11559234
>One should stop these theories from spreading.

Also this will have the opposite effect depending on your methods. I often hear from conspiracy theorists that one of their reasons for believing in the conspiracy is because everyone else is trying to convince them otherwise. And the more convincing you sound, the more articulate and informed you are, you just become part of the conspiracy.

>>11559222

>>11559260
OH NO NO NO NO

>>11553567
>>11559201
furthermore, this image is misleading because the building was still under construction when this photograph was taken, so it is not an accurate depiction of it eventual structural integrity, which was considerable. It was built, remember, to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. It was not some house of cards, like you liars, morons and traitors like to pretend it was.

>>11559260
Eeesh... You aren't doing your argument any favours by posting this.

>>11559242
A sheep talking about herd immunity. Priceless.

>>11559156
It deviates from what we saw because they actually simulated the collapse, rather than just making a lattice and animating it to do what they wanted.
>>11559223
It's easy and somewhat satisfying. I also used to (want to) believe in the theories when I was younger, so I think there's a genuine benefit in speaking the truth with new people coming into awareness of the event every year. Plus engaging in the discussion now and then has actually spurred me to learn a lot more about a subject I'm already interested in.
>>11559269
Filling floors with desks and cubicles doesn't add structural integrity. If the buildings are that high then they're already fighting their maximum wind loads everyday so you'd better hope the integrity is already at 100%.

>>11559080
Not an argument.

>>11559156
>And it would have to fail with minimal resistance. Correct?
What do you mean?

>How did that failure occur?
I already explained it.

>The answers provided here are insufficient for such a collapse.
How are they insufficient?

>The University of Alaska model went through the process of cutting columns in WTC7, until we see a collapse that mirrors what we saw in news media footage on that day i.e. straight down.
It doesn't actually cut columns, the model simply shows pieces rotating and falling straight down without resistance. It's completely unphysical and only mirrors the real collapse in the sense that it is an animation manually made to replicate it. Instead of repeating points that have already been debunked, I suggest you watch the video >>11551499 and respond to all of the problems found in the paper.

>>Where have they been debunked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOooHlaA0pE
I watched this and there is no response to any of the criticisms in the video I posted. It's just rehashing the paper. Again, where have the criticisms been debunked?

>>11559104

Do you realize your opinion is at odds with thousands of engineers and architects who are part of AEFT? Your denial of their investigation into the real causes of the buildings collpasing at free-fall speed into their own footprints is equivalent to people who deny human-influenced global warming despite there being an overwhelming consensus among geologists, oceanographers and other environmental scientists that we are contributing to it.

You are wrong on this one buddy.

>>11559269
>so it is not an accurate depiction of it eventual structural integrity, which was considerable

oh like >>11559260 lmao

>>11559299
>Do you realize your opinion is at odds with thousands of engineers and architects who are part of AEFT?
LOL, do you realize your opinion is at odds with hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects who aren't a part of AEFT?

>Your denial of their investigation into the real causes of the buildings collpasing at free-fall speed into their own footprints is equivalent to people who deny human-influenced global warming despite there being an overwhelming consensus among geologists, oceanographers and other environmental scientists that we are contributing to it.
Ooof, that schizo lack of awareness...

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

what is so hard

>>11556533

Where is the rest of the plane in this picture?

>The towers didn't go poof

Literally watch any of the videos of it collapsing. These were broadcast by all of the major news networks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8

>Why are you lying?

Lmfao that was all it took to get you to fold? Be more obvious shill.

>>11559286
But their simultated collapse deviates from what we saw. What everyone is saying is that with three steel frame high rise buildings, all collapsing from fire for the first time in history, and all on the same day, in a natural fashion, we would expect to see some lean and the buildings toppling over and yet not of them did that is what is so suspicious. The NIST model shows that the building would topple over, which is a naturally chaotic collapse that we would expect from a building that was only partially damaged on one side. The UA report recreates the collapse from the data and shows that in order to recreate said collapse, you would need to cut all core columns simultaneously.

>>11559286
>you'd better hope the integrity is already at 100%.
No I believe it was already at 100%. But by the time it was finished it was much higher than that. Enough to accept the load damage of at least obe boeing 707 crash into it and possibly more.

>>11559310
>hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects disagree with AEFT

source: my ass

>calling me a schizo for saying climate change is influenced by human industrial activity

Are you for real right now? lmfao.

>>11559316
>Where is the rest of the plane in this picture?
Under the building that collapsed on top of it? In the field not shown in the picture? Are you really this retarded?

>Literally watch any of the videos of it collapsing.
I did, the towers didn't go poof.

Again, why are you lying?

>>11559325

Done arguing with you. Have fun trying to brainwash zoomers.

>>11559322
>source: my ass
Wrong again.

>As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282007%29133%3A3%28308%29

>calling me a schizo for saying climate change is influenced by human industrial activity
What the fuck are you talking about? Keep your delusions to yourself schizo. I called you a schizo because you don't seem to recognize that you're in the same fringe as climate change deniers, right down to the same fallacious arguments: "thousands of scientists agree with me (just ignore the hundreds of thousands who don't)."

>>11559332
>Done arguing with you.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument. Another schizo bites the dust.

>>11559299
>is equivalent to people who deny human-influenced global warming

To be fair, global warming is making predictions by modeling a complex system, which is hard and one of the things scientists are worst at.

Reverse engineering the collapse, you just make a model of something that already happened. Then you tweak the model until it matches the real world result, and if the parameters you used are realistic, you can be pretty confident that the real thing happened in a similar way.

>>11559293
>How are they insufficient?
You are being intellectually dishonest. I already know and understand, the mechanisms of collapse described in the NIST report. It is up to you to already know and understand the counter claims of why they are incorrect, in order to conduct a properly informed debate, not waste people's time or come off as a retard.

For instance, pancake collapse can't explain why there was molten metal flowing around the site of WTC, from six months to three years after the collapse of the building. See:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194832/http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html

>the model simply shows pieces rotating and falling straight down without resistance
>shows pieces rotating
>rotating
It really doesn't. You obviously didn't watch it or haven't seen any videos of the collapse of WTC if you think that.
>falling straight down without resistance
That is essentially happened on the day, all three buildings fell at freefall, or close to freefall speed, something which I think is highly unlikely in the case of "pancake theory" idiots and impossible with WTC7.
>and only mirrors the real collapse
But it does mirror it. Where the NIST report fails and is therefore false. Furthermore, they used finite element modelling, which is what all engineers use to measure loads and stresses. That fact alone debunks the false claims in your video.
It has been a long time since I've delved into this subject. I thought that the video I posted directly referenced the claims made in that video. But, I believe that the information in that video is sufficient enough to counter any claim that their methods and research was not rigorous or invalid in any other way. You can dispute that, if you wish, but you should show your reasons.

>>11559353
You didn't win. You just denied the reality that anyone with access to a video streaming platform can stream for themselves, coomer.

>>11559353
>bites the dust
>the dust
>dust
Oh the irony.

>>11558662
isn't that the south tower?
south tower's core was remarkably intact after the collapse
the north tower's core was just a collection of loosely connected columns swaying for a few seconds before it fell

>argue with my friends in highschool about the wtc collapse
>they are all convinced it was an inside job and a controlled demolition
>argue with flawless reasoning and evidence
>one become a counter terrorist, another a structural engineer, another a pilot, and the last a firefighter. They all have long sense thanked me for restoring their trust in society and saving them from a blind and bitter existence.
>in college argue with and convince a flat earther, he became an astronaut
>you're a fucking idiot if you're still reading this

>>11559376
Where are the core columns in that image?

>>11558668
How was it pulverised. If pancake theory is correct, then the first floor to fall, fell a distance of ten about ten feet, until it collided with the floor beneath it. This would not generate sufficient force to pulverise the concrete, neither would the next or the next. And yet we see plumes of pulverised concrete and glass billowing out from the building as soon as the collapse is underway.

>>11558723
>You can see the pancaked mass of floor plates.
You can't. Furthermore a building with 110 floors that pancakes in the manner describe in the NIST report should still measure much greater in height than a mere seven floors. The concrete alone would fill that area and that isn't accounting for all of the steel outer and core columns or the material that went into the construction of the basement itself. As you have failed to show the mechanism for how the concrete was instantly vapourised, you cannot account for how so little of the WTC remained after the collapse. So, you have failed on both accounts and therefore failed utterly.

>>11559360
>You are being intellectually dishonest. I already know and understand, the mechanisms of collapse described in the NIST report.
Apparently not.

>It is up to you to already know and understand the counter claims of why they are incorrect, in order to conduct a properly informed debate, not waste people's time or come off as a retard.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH BOY. So I am supposed to come up with your argument? And you think I'm the one being intellectually dishonest? No, your constant avoidance of presenting any substance shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Nice LARP attempt, but you got exposed.

>For instance, pancake collapse can't explain why there was molten metal flowing around the site of WTC, from six months to three years after the collapse of the building.
LOL, your own source explains it:

>For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

>It really doesn't.
It really does. It starts with the penthouse splitting and rotating around a point for no reason. You obviously didn't watch it or haven't seen any videos of the collapse of WTC if you think that.

>That is essentially happened on the day
No, the penthouse did not pass through columns as if they weren't there.

>all three buildings fell at freefall
They demonstrably didn't. You can see columns falling faster than buildings. They actually feel several seconds slower than free fall:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

>But it does mirror it.
So does a "model" where the towers fall by magic. That is essentially what the Hulsey report has, since it uses an unphysical, hand drawn "model."

>Where the NIST report fails and is therefore false.
The NIST report replicates the initial collapse. The rest is too chaotic to model accurately. You clearly haven't watched the video I gave you since this is explained there.

>Furthermore, they used finite element modelling
They didn't. Watch the video.

>>11559426
>I greentexted the whole bible what are you going to do now

>>11559369
>You didn't win.
I did though. You can keep whining about it but that's not an argument.

>You just denied the reality that anyone with access to a video streaming platform can stream for themselves, coomer.
What reality did I deny?

>>11559428
>I have no argument so I'll just whine
I accept your admittance of defeat.

>>11559426
>You can dispute that, if you wish, but you should show your reasons.

>>11559386
the dark silhouette in the background is the core of the south tower
you can see it in plenty of videos and images as a dark rectangle partially hidden by the cloud of dust shortly after collapse
you can also see it start to fall on its own

>>11559451
and here's a good image of the north tower's core, in much worse shape than the south tower's core after collapse
but it lasted longer before it also fell, probably because it's shorter so less weight and a longer lifespan (few more seconds)

>>11559426
>>Furthermore, they used finite element modelling
>They didn't. Watch the video.
see pic related

>>11559426
>>11559468
Here's another

>>11559466
>It lasted before it fell
Meaning it didn't last, which disputes the claim that it survived mostly intact.

>>11559426
>>11559468
>>11559471
Do you want more evidence?

>>11559448
No, that's not how a debate works. I posted a video, which it seems you still haven't watched, criticizing the paper. You posted a video, which I spent 45 minutes (!) watching and which you believed, based on nothing, to counter the first video. I don't need to present reasons why your assumption is wrong, you need to respond to the criticisms instead of avoiding them and making assumptions.

>>11559426
>>11559468
>>11559471
>>11559473
And here's a comparative image showing finite element analysis done by Goudsmit UK. You can see that the methodolgy is identical.

>>11559476
Forgot pic

>>11559474
>I believe that the information in that video is sufficient enough to counter any claim that their methods and research was not rigorous or invalid in any other way. You can dispute that, if you wish, but you should show your reasons.
My evidence was the video. You need to ask the loser who made your original video to make a rebuttal to the new video, or make one yourself or make an equivalently detailed and well-documented argument here, otherwise you've lost. As you have already shown, you are incapable of making such an argument, so you have lost by default.

>>11559468
>see pic related
That's presenting someone else's work, the FEA of Tony Szamboti. Weidly, Hulsey did not properly cite Szamboti in his paper.

>>11559471
Watch 11:42 of the video >>11551499. This is a strawman the paper presents. NIST did not rely on that simulation for the global collapse model.

>>11559473
This is just describing the two things you already presented.

>>11559487
>My evidence was the video.
The video is just presenting the same material as what's in the paper, which the video I gave you is critiquing. You would know this if you just watched the video. But instead you made a fool of yourself once again. This has already been explained to you, so you're literally repeating the same mistake you already admitted to when you said you assumed the video responded to the critiques without actually checking.

>You need to ask the loser who made your original video to make a rebuttal to the new video
No, you need to come up with a counterargument or leave, instead of arguing dishonestly like you are now.

>>11559299
Ya know one of my issues with the aeft is I could never find an architects license on their founder, Richard Gage. Says he's done a bunch of stuff, but zero specifics. San Francisco architect through the 90s at least, allegedly. Lemme know if you find anything.
Looked up is taxes too. Seems he's spending more on himself than research. The only job I can apply for is volunteering my time to promote the cause, pro bono of course.

But yeah, for the time being I'll side with the other thousands of architects and engineers who disagree.

>You agreeing with the aeft investigation Is equivelant to agreeing with all the pharmacologists doctors and medical lawyers who swear only 1% of opiod addicted patients are addicted to opioids.


Look I don't doubt 9/11 was an inside job by Jews and members of our government (mostly Jews). For fucks sake Ronald Lauder somehow privatized Stewart Air Force Base only a year before, which 2 of the flight paths crossed directly over. The ptech software allowing gross communication and interoperability between huge groups like a military and FAA failed perfectly that day. Many of the same names from ptech pop up in the Iran Contra Affair.

I doubt they needed explosives to bring the building down the way they did is all. Seems pretty straightforward that the steel beams were weakened by an airplane collision and heat, gave way to weight, and the floor beneath (while it could handle the load) could not handle the impact, and so on for all remaining floors beneath, one at a time. Such a domino effect, caused by gravity, would happen at the speed of gravity with only slight resistance. Given a uniform structure with faint winds wouldn't push it too much one way or the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9nUPs2RAk

Can anything in this film be refuted? Such as the lack of footage of a plane hitting the pentagon?

>>11550010
Thermite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SG_ut1BRI8

>>11559319
Both towers are topped out in that sunrise image. You can tell by the spire on the north tower, and the fact that each is noticeably divided in thirds, which was a distinct design feature of the buildings.
>>11559419
The walls on each side of the buildings are falling outward in the footage. The trusses that connected the walls to the core had a contiguous layer of concrete flooring laid over top of them, so when the wall falls or is pushed outward by the collapsing section it yanks on the core and all the trusses shatter the floor sitting on them and it disintegrates, because concrete is not meant to be twisted and bent.

>>11550010

They hit the right support beams. You know how hard that is when piloting a plane? How did they know about the support beam arrangements?

>>11560841
>They hit the right support beams.
Every floor was the same, moron.

>>11559217
imagine not knowing what inertia is

>>11559311
why tf didn't the other beams hold?

>>11559360
>molten metal flowing around the site of WTC, from six months to three years after the collapse of the building

So was WTC a volcano or Chernobyl or some shit

>>11553415
>would of
You fucking serious? Way to out yourself as a retard

What is it called when someone insists something has to be wrong or a conspiracy theory because an entirely unprecedented and unstudied situation played out in a way they think it shouldn't have?

>>11561317
You mean after the damage or during the pancaking?

>>11561369
a conspiracy theory

It's not even unprecedented situations, even small details of interest they don't understand are fuel for the theory. Like I can go watch hour long videos of astronauts floating on the ISS in ways that are impossible to fake, and their pants creased a way I thought was weird and suddenly it's an invisible cable and all the problems with that explanation I ignore

>>11559286
Are you the British guy who made that documentary?

>>11561491
I've never made any documentaries. Who is it?

Can anyone explain the explosions heard in recordings of the buildings right before their collapse? Or the many firefighters' testimonies of multiple explosions in towers 1, 2, and 7?

Also why was the collapse of the solomon building reported in advance? Not to mention it was still standing in the background:
https://youtu.be/677i43QfYpQ?t=73

>>11561683
Well obviously,it's either an orchestrated conspiracy where someone unnecessarily feeds information to the media to increase the complexity and failure points of the conspiracy, or just misreporting

With the amount of actors and amount of information involved, it's not unbelievable that something that happened was misreported in advance. If you combed through all 9/11 reporting, you can find way more things that were misreported and didn't happen at all. Psychology doesn't care about the null cases and picks the one coincidence to apply significance to.

>>11561722
If they just "misreported" it then why did the BBC somehow lose the footage? Again, why was the collapse reported when the building was still visible in the background? Do you mean to tell me no one checked before they got on air?

>>11561683
BBC doesn't have any timestamps in their footage except for BBC24, which shows footage of the collapse at 22:34, that's 14 minutes after it fell in NY. The lack of authentic time stamps in the BBC world footage makes it dubious to believe the anchor first reported the collapse at 5:10pm NY time, as a further video from your link claims.

The conversation with Jane Stanley might have had a pre-recorded background chroma'd in behind her, it's common knowledge that news fakes "on the scene" footage all the time, and the technology is as old as weather forecasting. She also doesn't mention the Saloman building even though he name drops it to her, so it's possible her reporting was itself pre-recorded and they got their anchor to fake the conversation with her because she mentions the Marriott partially collapsing.

>>11561804
Very interesting take. Can you provide evidence that it was pre-recorded? Why didn't the BBC use this excuse when they came under fire?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Also, Jane Stanley was in NY that day so why would they have to green screen a background of it behind her?

>>11561908
>why would they have to green screen a background of it behind her?
I was just assuming she wouldn't have been in the city, if she was then forget about it. I still don't think the theory of prematurely reporting the collapse works when there are no BBC provided timestamps. Where are all these people getting the broadcast times from?

>>11561734
>why did the BBC somehow lose the footage?
The lost footage you just watched on youtube?

>Do you mean to tell me no one checked before they got on air?
Yes. That's a fact whether there's a conspiracy or not. Do you think they checked it and reported it anyway?

>>11550010

The towers falling conspiracy was invented to detract from the actual conspiracy that the Bush & Bin Ladin families planned that shit together and their company, The Carlyl Group was the only beneficiary of the Iraq / Afghan wars.

>>11562522
>The lost footage you just watched on youtube?
The BBC claims it does not have any footage of the broadcast in its possession which is incredibly strange. They just so happened to 'cock-up' and not archive it, apparently. If they did have it they would have to release it so that the timestamps can be confirmed like >>11562382 is asking. The current consensus on that matter is that the collapse of WTC 7 was reported around 30 minutes in advance. Whoever told the BBC it collapsed must be clairvoyant because steel structures have historically failed to collapse due to fire. 9/11 was the first time it had ever happened, supposedly, so how did that source know that WTC 7 was next or even had the potential to topple over?

>Do you think they checked and reported it anyway?
No. Why would a reputable news source not verify information it received before presenting it in front of the whole world? Why hasn't the BBC revealed who told them WTC 7 collapsed?

>>11562622
>The BBC claims it does not have any footage of the broadcast in its possession which is incredibly strange.
It's strange depending on what you think is normal. It matters depending on what actually is normal. I would think a major network would keep a historically significant broadcast. But I also know historically significant things aren't maintained literally all the time.

>Whoever told the BBC it collapsed must be clairvoyant because steel structures have historically failed to collapse due to fire. 9/11 was the first time it had ever happened, supposedly, so how did that source know that WTC 7 was next or even had the potential to topple over?
Usually misreporting happens in a game of telephone. Like if 7 was some other number, or damaged was miscommunicated as demolished. If you think reporters passing on information have facts in their head like the history of steel building collapses under fire, that's just retarded.

>Why would a reputable news source not verify information it received before presenting it in front of the whole world?
This is so normal dude, even for stuff that isn't time sensitive in a chaotic news room

>Why hasn't the BBC revealed who told them WTC 7 collapsed?
Well I'm going to guess they didn't write it down, and if they bothered to back trace the information someone wouldn't fess up to it. I also think they don't care, just like they don't care about all the other misreporting that happened that day that's not tied to a conspiracy theory. They aren't pressured by your questions at all.

>>11562622
>Why would a reputable news source not verify information it received before presenting it in front of the whole world?

Also what is this a leaded question into? They didn't verify it because it was fed by the conspirator and they don't second guess fed information? What? Why does a conspirator need to tell them a building they are in the process of destroying collapsed? If it's part of the plan they don't fact check the conspirator, aren't they in on the conspiracy? Why? It could only produce the mistake you are suspecting, that the hand of a planned event was revealed too early.

>>11562680
>I would think a major network would keep a historically significant broadcast.
You're right! They would have because it was mandated by their media management policy. So why wasn't the broadcast archived? Where is the original footage?!

>A game of telephone fudged the flow of information.
This actually does seem plausible, but there is still a problem. The reporter could have just been informed that the building was still up in the background and corrected herself but instead her camera feed was cut off. When it came back on the building was down. The BBC still could have just corrected itself after the fact but instead chose to "lose" the tapes.

>This is so normal dude,
...

As for that last bit they went for the ol'
>muh chaos! muh confusion!
route, as seen here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Again I will ask why the broadcaster was not corrected while she was still on air. It would have been very easy, not to mention they even zoomed in on the building while talking about the other towers' smoldering remains.

>>11562694
It had to have been revealed too early. WTC 7 was zoomed in on during the news broadcast so in the event the BBC was just parroting what it heard from other sources the Salomon bros. building was right in front of their faces Instead of correcting the slip up the camera was shut off and came back on after the building collapsed.

https://bollyn.com

>>11553005
Golden video, the humor, the explaination. Everything 10/10.

because oil grabbing and the stock market boomers greed
it's not the Al Qaeda for fucks sake

>>11561656
https://www.metabunk.org/mirror/www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

>>>/x/

>>11562622
>The current consensus on that matter is that the collapse of WTC 7 was reported around 30 minutes in advance
This consensus was likely reached by people who made up the broadcast times to fit their narrative, since there are no BBC produced graphics or verbal exclamations present in the recordings to indicate what time the broadcasts went out at.

>>11553054
Oh yes jet flies in tower and all of a sudden we’re fighting all the war Israel stated in the Clean Break Memo. Maybe the fact Mossad agents were filming and dancing after the tower were hit is just normal.

>>11556533
>WTC 7 was on fire for hours and then collapsed.
is it true?

>>11564502
yes
1 WTC collapsed 10:28 am EDT
7 WTC collapsed 5:20 pm EDT

Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might cave to one side or "collapse". During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building and issued uncertain reports about damage in the basement. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.

>>11564541
> concrete explodes when heated
Should we begin building of stone again?

>>11564564
>>concrete explodes when heated
no it does not, and no that didn't happen, where did you read that? what the hell are you even saying, you fucking schizo?

>>11564643
Yeah, yeah, we're all schizos here.
All it would take you is these three words in a search bar: concrete heated explodes
Though I never exploded concrete by heating myself, I am an artist who works with concrete, so I read about it features in sources not connected to 9/11 and so you also can know that concrete accumulates huge amounts of water. Any guess what happens to that water when concrete is heated? Go to that searchbar now, you faggot and promoter of big-pharma poisoning your children.

>>11564415
The BBC knew it messed up and tries to cover its tracks in the following link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
I suggest you read the comments to get an idea of why people were suspicious. Maybe the BBC should have just not lost those tapes.

>>11563565
>Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions
What in the world? Bodies hitting the floor outside of the building could not be mistaken for explosions inside the building by a trained fireman. Those are two completely different noises.

> They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
If those firefighters wanted to show that it was just the floors collapsing why did they say that it was as if the building had been detonated? It is also obvious that it sounds like the floors are crashing into each other because that is what happens during a controlled demolition: the building comes down. The WTC 7 section of your source also has no mention of Larry Silverstein saying "pull it" in reference to the Salomon bros. building. Why not?

>>11559804

Nice position fading.

>>11564926
Nothing said in that article is out of the ordinary for news reporting. It's not exactly feasible to keep every second of every broadcast stored in their archives, especially in the era of tape storage. They say their policy is to keep everything for 90 days and then they only have to keep partials, so right there is one non-malicious explanation for the loss of the footage. The flow of information comes in from multiple sources which are not always correct, live reporting just exacerbates the problem since agencies are competing for viewership and want to be on the bleeding edge. Firemen warning of the building's collapse in advance seems to be a fact that pops up regardless of who you ask, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the news people talking to them on the ground inadvertently bought in to a game of Chinese whispers with the chain of listening agencies employing them, and "about to collapse" becomes "collapsed".

>>11550024
jet fuel cant melt steel beams rerard

>>11562965
>It had to have been revealed too early.

So answer my questions

>>11562960
>Again I will ask why the broadcaster was not corrected while she was still on air.

Are any of those hypothetical answers "because it was a conspiracy"? These questions point to nothing. Whether the information was received by a conspirator or misreported a correction would still need to be made. A correction wasn't made or was made when the feed was down. It doesn't matter.

This is just explanatory gap bullshit. You're hung on a detail that looks weird and you can't explain a model of how this is supposed to be indicative of a conspiracy. And if you aren't leaning towards a conspiracy what is the point of these questions? If you have answers for >>11562694 let me know

>>11565339
>>11565307
I'm asking the questions that I am because the situation seems fishy, if that wasn't clear enough. The BBC failed to archive their own coverage of one of the most significant events in modern history because... ??? By their own words it was due to a "cock-up" which is nothing short of a laughable excuse.

>Why does a conspirator need to tell them a building they are in the process of destroying collapsed?
I was saying that they reported the collapse too early but a different anon said it is possible that they misreported what they heard. Another problem is that the building should not have been in danger of collapsing to begin with. Footage of WTC 7 makes it plain that the building fell symmetrically into its own footprint which is commonly blamed on fires in the tower despite such a thing not being possible. Since a steel structure collapsing due to fire was an unprecedented event, how did firefighters and other personnel know that it was in danger of collapsing? How did reporters know it was in danger of collapsing given that the collapse of a steel structure due to fire would be anomalous? What brought down WTC 7, and why did Larry Silverstein say to 'pull' the building?

>If it's part of the plan they don't fact check the conspirator, aren't they in on the conspiracy? Why?
Like I already said before, they had to have failed and reported the matter too early. Now I have a question for you: why was footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon seized from multiple locations and why was this footage not released to the public to shut conspiracy theorists up?

>>11565628
In case you tell me that debris weakened WTC 7 which made it easier for it to crumble, why did it fall symmetrically into its own footprint?

>>11565628
>Since a steel structure collapsing due to fire was an unprecedented event, how did firefighters and other personnel know that it was in danger of collapsing?
Because it wasn't unprecedented, it happened six hours prior, twice. Who would have thought firefighters would be paranoid about burning buildings collapsing on 9/11 after hundreds of their buddies just took a steel shower?
>>11565650
Debris started the fires, which are what initiated the collapse. There's no reason to believe the impact weakened it substantially. The building didn't collapse symmetrically it lilted to the south on the way down.

>>11565628
>I'm asking the questions that I am because the situation seems fishy

Yeah sure

>By their own words it was due to a "cock-up" which is nothing short of a laughable excuse.

Because you're so confident in an explanation you won't present here.

>I was saying that they reported the collapse too early

Which implies they were supposed to report it on a schedule, as in they are in on a conspiracy, and you're not just asking questions.

Everything else you're talking about are 19 year old questions about the collapse with 19 year old answers and I wonder how you retards avoided them all this time. Also blatantly false characterizations of things you can watch videos of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

WTC7 did not "symmetrically into its own footprint". It was gored in the back by large debris, the internal structure collapsed, then the outer shell of the building was last to fall like a sheet.

Steel structures collapse in fire all the time, you're conflating with concrete. But that's irrelevant, the relevant part is that WTC7 was damaged and damaged burning buildings can fall.

>Like I already said before, they had to have failed and reported the matter too early.

Why are they in on the conspiracy? How does it help the conspirator? If they mistime a report they would make anyway without being in on the conspiracy it leaves a bread crumb.

Stop pretending you're just asking questions and present a model of how this conspiracy is supposed to work. I shouldn't even replied about the collapse without getting answers on the BBC and I'm definitely not talking about the pentagon if it's just going to go the same way.

>>11565858
Also 56 seconds in for convenience

https://youtu.be/l6tn6dyRQhE?t=57

You can see the interior structure collapse at the top and break the windows where it deflects the exterior, then the curtain drops

>>11565628
>“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said, “you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it, and they made that decision to pull, uh, and we watched the building collapse.”

Larry told the fire department commander to blow up the building, then he recounted it in an interview on national television so you would know about it. What do you not understand?

>>11565858
You are aware that the video you posted does not match videos of the tower falling in real life, right? In fact, it does not even resemble the YouTube video you linked. At no point does the WTC 7 assume the same shape of the model during its collapse as shown by the attached picture.

>Yeah sure
Okay?

>Steel structures collapse in fire all the time,
All the time? No. It does happen occasionally, but there is not a single recorded instance of a steel building falling from top to bottom due to fire and gravity. I recommend you watch this webm that was posted earlier in the thread to see what I am talking about.
>>>/wsg/3298062

>Stop pretending you're just asking questions and present a model of how this conspiracy is supposed to work.
I already outlined my thoughts but it seems you have ignored them. Perhaps you should reread my previous posts?

>I'm definitely not talking about the pentagon
You don't need to because there is nothing you can say to excuse the lack of footage of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon. A slideshow that does not even have as much as 1/4 of the plane in view does not cut it. 19 years and a slideshow is the best they can do... kek

>>11565915
Why would the fire department need to plant explosives when, to their knowledge, fire and gravity is all you need to bring down a building? The fire department also set up those explosives remarkably fast, I must say.

>>11565977
It's a model. Unless you know the exact form of the damage that no one has photos of, and you have perfect parameters, you're not going to get an exact result. The model is clearly inaccurate in the last few seconds and the outer shell of the building does not deform nor tilt that much, but it demonstrates features of the collapse that are easily overlooked and trains the eye to look for what's happening inside the building instead of what's outside. Watch the top of the building, watch the windows, watch how the building flexes and loses its squareness in the final moments of the collapse. It's really obvious everything fell in on that left side and the hole radiated left to right from that spot. There's not a sound structure behind the interior walls that's being miraculously vaporized from the bottom as I used to believe.

>fire and gravity.
fire and damage. If WTC7 collapsed from just fire I would be suspicious, as it wasn't a steel truss design. Stop repeating yourself and respond to my argument.

>I already outlined my thoughts but it seems you have ignored them. Perhaps you should reread my previous posts?

So let me see if I understand. A conspirator blows up a building, and commands the media to report that the building is destroyed for no advantage. The media are co-conspirators and subordinate to the main conspirator. They recognize an anachronism in the conspirator's plan after they report the results of the plot before it happened, but they don't correct it and kill the feed of a reporter on scene, accomplishing nothing.

Here's how I would do it.

I blow up a building, the media sees that it is destroyed and reports it. I don't have to control the media whether I actually do or not, nor create unnecessary loose ends that could be witnesses against me, and there's no way an anachronism can draw suspicion.

>You don't need to because there is nothing you can say to excuse the lack of footage
Yeah I can, the government sucks

>>11566027
I see what you are talking about in terms of the top of the building and the windows though. Still, that does not excuse the way that the building fell down. If you want you can watch this film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9nUPs2RAk

>So let me see if I understand.
It appears that you mostly understand what I am talking about.

>Yeah I can, the government sucks
Let's just forget this conversation even happened. Have a nice evening, anon.

>>11550010
>conspiracy: a group of people try to do something in secret
>terrorists: a group of people try to do something in secret

Anyway you look at it, the entire thing was a conspiracy. It is just which conspiracy do you want to prescribe to...?

>>11550010
It wasnt because of fire

>>11566989
indeed. i like to call officialtards coincidence theorists.