/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3709840 I find it hard to believe that two little planes can bring down a couple of buildings this large.

And that is why you're not worth talking to.

If you cannot even accept the possibility... can't even fathom it enough to form a "belief"... then you're not going to be convinced no matter what science is thrown at you that proves it.

9/11 happened pretty much the way people thought it did. Deal wit hit.

Maybe the terrorist's also planted Explosives?

i wish there were more janitors on /sci/ it would be so easy to clean up a slow board like this

let me deflate your entire world view

did you know that steel loses strength on a curve, like a transition from solid to taffy to liquid, instead of suddenly turning into a liquid at its melting point?

yeah

> jet fuel and other burning materials are able to get hot enough to turn the frame of the building into 'molten metal'
hahah no it doesn't.
However, it does burn hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel by several factors of safety.

You stupid faggot.

OP, the steel didn't need to turn molten. It just needs to be weakened enough to fail, which tends to happen when a Jumbo Jet fly's into the building. Once the top stories collapse, the whole thing is just a chain reaction, the force of the falling building makes the next floor down fail, then the next one and so on.

>>3709856
the special structural backbone of the twin towers made it especially vulnerable to multifloor fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

>>3709864
see
>>3709863

>all buildings are the same

no, dumbshit.

>>3709864

See >>3709845

Go away.

>still responding to truther trolls

>Implying in 50 years time truthers won't be still be trying to get the truth whether or not it was an inside jerb.

>>3709863
>>3709860

I just want to point out here, that should we accept that the jets were the primary cause of collapse, and given that the information in the two above posts is more or less correct, then the following should be pointed out for dark comic effect:

Given that the twin towers were specifically designed to be able to with stand impact by a jet liner, the architectural design of those two building constitute THE MOST ironic and catastrophic total engineering FAIL since the RMS Titanic

>>3709895

No shit that's part of what makes it so sad

>>3709895
>engineers
>capable of anything other than trial and error at the cost of human lives

pick one

You buffoons. They actually found molten steel. A lot of it.

Real scientists/architects, please?

>>3709911
>a pile of burning shit just collapsed into a pit

no shit there was molten steel.

>>3709909

>engineers
>not gay

pick one

>>3709895
Yeh, that would be fucking hard to design into a building into the first place though, whoever designed it probably shouldn't have made that claim in the first place. What size jetliner was it supposed to be able to withstand?

>>3709894
Holocaust denial, still going strong.

It's going to be sad, in 50 years there will be some loss of relevant government documents, and some truther will try to use that as evidence.

>>3709911

nice ironically relevant dub dubs.

but yea...um, when all that rubble was piled on top of each other that shit was pretty hot. ground zero was like a furnace for days. Just because there was molten steel at the bottom doesn't mean it was molten on the way down.

>>3709909
Not true. Nowadays, a lot of thought and factors of safety goes into designs before they are built (stress analysis etc.), especially in developed countries. Also, what the fuck are you talking about, all of science is founded on trial and error.

>>3709895
the titanic didn't fail, its abilities where simply exaggerated. a building not collapsing to a plane is an entirely different set of abilities.

>>3709911

>>3709927

>build and "unsinkable" or least compartmentalized-containment based ship

>build an icecube tray instead

yea sure, that's definitively not a total design fail.

>>3709926
deathtolls of the 20th century
>holocaust: 11million
>stalin: 15million
>mao: 50million
>engineers "trying shit out": 2.8billion

we have a winner

>>3709917

A 707, from what I heard. An admittedly smaller aircraft. As is that would have made a difference given the aforementioned multistory fires, structural compromises , and yes, jet fuel.

Hell I bet one of those buildings would have still gone down if there was a major enough non-jet related fire on any one of the upper floors

>>3709939
Sauce on this? 2.8 billion seems rather exorbitant

>>3709927
the twin towers didn't fail, their abilities were simply exaggerated. A ship not sinking after grazing an iceberg is an entirely different set of abilities.

>>3709953
>grazing an iceberg
>grazing

go watch the movie again dumbshit.

titanic sank because of onboard explosives

a lot of fucking retards in /sci/
>4chan
>internet
oh

>>3709954

>he thinks that the dipictions of physics in james cameron films are accurate

Dude, the Titanic DID graze the iceburg. Accounts of the event and underwater shots of the wreck even confirm this.

The welding job and the steel on the bolts that held the outer bulkheads together were utter shit, and gave out under the lateral pressure of the iceberg as it scraped by. The hull plates split in at the seems, allowing seawater to rush in and split the plates even further.

Suddenly, water, water everywhere.

Not even Geordi Laforge could've canceled that shit once it started.

OF COURSE I'M SURE THAT'S JUST WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE

PARLIAMENT DID TITANIC

>>3709983
>implying I'm talking about the cameron movie

oh and also
>citation needed

>>3709939

>>3709924
>>3709915
Where did the extra energy come from, to heat that metal enough to create molten steel which would, subsequently, stay molten for weeks? Not the friction, I can tell you that much. Where are you getting this idea that molten metal is a natural outcome of a building collapse? It wasn't in that farce of a 9/11 commission report. It has no basis in science. Lest we get into the fact that the buildings fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering, and completely throws out the notion that the buildings were designed to hold up all of the unsecured-weight of the structure above any given point in the event of partial structural failure.

Can you fathom how much material needs to be removed from underneath the collapsed section in order to allow the majority of the building to fall at such a velocity, and in such a direction?

Have you any proper education in any kind of sciences, at all?

This is seriously how religions are born. A ruling class makes up some sob-story bullshit, and the idiot masses follow along with it because it makes sense in their fabricated social-reality, since they're stupid enough to believe it.

9/11 was a goddamn joke on all of us.

>>3709996
>where did the extra energy come from
oh I don't know, fire, matter into energy. blah blah.

>heat that metal enough to create molten steel which would, subsequently, stay molten for weeks
jetfuel in a fire pit will do that

>fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering
maybe if you actually knew something about the structure of the towers. oh wait, retards like you only regurgitate shit other people told you. on youtube

>buildings were designed to hold up all of the unsecured-weight of the structure above any given point in the event of partial structural failure.
engineers aren't gods, see>>3709939

>Can you fathom how much material needs to be removed from underneath the collapsed section in order to allow the majority of the building to fall at such a velocity, and in such a direction?
maybe if you actually knew something about the structure of the towers. oh wait, retards like you only regurgitate shit other people told you. on youtube


>Have you any proper education in any kind of sciences, at all?
I don't and I still shit all over you.

>>3710000

>this guys just posted everything i was about to post
>quad zeros to boot

[ ] Told
[ ] Fucking told
[X] Knights of the Told Republic

>>3710000
Hey, look, it's fucking nothing.

>>3710003
>quads
>fucking nothing

Denial General

First and last time in /sci/....

OP=Sheeple

>>3710000
I don't support conspiracy theories but get the fuck out of this board

>>3709996

If the buildings really "fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering"

then that would also mean it couldn't have been explosives because when a building comes down from explosives, that's pretty well within our understanding of physics and engineering. unless of course you mean what you said and thus you are implying that aliens used an advanced space-time distortion device to bring the buildings down.

In which case it would still be within our understanding of physics but not of engineering.

>>3710004
Keep shit-posting. It makes me hard.

>>3710013
>shit posting

Projecting General

>>3710011
Do I really need to specify the context of "planes flying into the bitches"?

Fuck this, I'm going to bed.

I challenge /sci to melt metal with jet fuel. You will not be able to do it.

>>3710031
>unfamiliar with the concept of an oven

where you from? caveland?

>>3710032
>hi, I heated up your 60 inch thick long steel columns
>to 1400 degrees
>with jet fuel
> in 56 minutes

So.... building 7?

Who cares how it collapse,
Doesn't change the fact the US government was involved.

>>3710031
Cavemen did it with fucking wood.
I think jet fuel is a little bit more potent then wood.
Lrn2think for yourself.
(Yes, thinking for yourself will lead you to correctly believing terrorist took a couple planes and flew them into buildings.)

>>3709840
Class Detla Fires and class Bravo fires have gotten this hot multiple times. As seen in the case of the USS Forestall and the USS George Washington, simple aircraft based fires are massive and devastating when uncontrolled, and those only involved smaller fighter craft, unlike the large bodies of the airliners that hit the world trade center.

Re: 7 WTC, this is a common incident that bombs use to destroy terrorists, overpressure. Being exposed to massive amounts of heat and pressure can destroy a target, which is what atomic weapons, as well as large bombs such as the MOAB do.

Try this. Have hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel. Next add in the vast amount of flammable items in the buildings. Finally have this conflagration rage in an enclosed area where heat and pressure can build up

Paging Captain Obvious.

>>3709996
Yes actually, this is the same thing that happened to the Forestall and George Washington, which nearly destroyed both aircraft carriers. Never underestimate the energy stored in metal, combined with the hollowing out of the metal core, which lead to an imbalance. In the case of the George Washington, the fire caused from burning materials in the electronics caused its main drive shaft, a massive piece of metal to melt, disabling its main drive systems until major repairs happened. Would you like to know more about fires?

(In the Navy we are concerned with metal fires, as they are our worst nightmare, and what we train to fight, and prevent.)

Metal fires tend to burn for long times, and the only good treatment is simply to toss the metal overboard. However, buildings do not have this option, and the metal will burn, destroying the building proper.

>>3709847

My thoughts exactly. They did have a van blow up in the parking garage in the ninety's, so why not have bombs planted to go off after the planes collide????

>>3710126
Try magnesium fires for example. They produce a huge burst of white-hot sparks when water is applied because the temperature is high enough that the liquid actually breaks down into its molecular components (hydrogen and oxygen), which then ignite.

>>3710138
Explosives have common resdues which would have been noticed by multiple experts. Due to the nature of the world trade center site and the disposal of the ashes, it would have been impossible to cover it up. (The Ashes are easily assessable at a large landfill facility only 1 hour away, and the air covered huge areas of New York City.

>>3710140
NAVCOM on magnesium fires.
Class Delta Fire
Cause: Burning Metals (Magnesium,)
Treatment: Toss Overboard.

There isn't even a suggested treatment, which makes submarine fires .. well fightable, but HARD.

>>3710149
I bet they spark like crazy when you throw them into the drink.

You 9/11 folk are worse than the moon landing guys.

>>3710155
They spark and stop, since its usually fighter jets that are the D sources.

>>3710163

"Get this wreckage over to Area 51 for examination immediately!"

"But sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing..."

"Then we'll have to REALLY land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell them to 'Get off their fannies!'"

A "recent" bush fire in Australia generated enough heat to make molten metal.

bush fire = started by trees.

Or did the Australian government plant explosives all over the country =.=

I've seen a burnt down truck in the desert that had the steel melted out of the bumper, all that was left was a paper thin chrome husk of a bumper.

>>3709864
b25's are tiny baby compared to 767 jumbo jets

also b25's are turboprop (propeller)
whereas 767 is jet powered\

quit being retarded

>>3710208
NO! The US government planted thermite in in order to generate more support for their coverup!

>>3710163
Tell me about it.
At least the moon landing guys are right

>HURRR DURRRR THE PLANES DIDN'T REALLY MAKE THE BUILDINGS BLOW UP IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

so, why didn't the government just roll with the "terrorists blew up the wtc with a controlled demolition" story?

>HURRR DURRR WAKE UP SHEEPLE

>>3710230

Turboprops are pretty much jet engines with a propeller connected to the shaft anyway.

>>3710234
Because they tried it already in 1993, you derp.

>>3710237
and how is that a counter-argument?

oh wait, they're like the villains in every 90's series: they can only use a method once ever, instead of trying it again with the knowledge and improvements on what went wrong last time

>>3710235
no.
they are two different things

one is a tiny plane with propellers
the other is a huge fucking plane with jets

VERY DIFFERENT
infact they both use different fuels

so, by your logic
a diesel semi-tractor is the same as a minivan

>truthers

>>3710233
>2011
>Still thinking the moon landing was fake
ISHYGDDT

>>3710240
Because if they did and it worked, people would have been pissed about security not being tight enough, since there had already been an attack in the past.

It's like you're really stupid.

Wait a minute...

Assuming the government really did it, do they really have to collapse those towers?

4 simultaneous plane hijackings pretty much screams "major terrorist attack" to me. I don't think they really need to collapse the tower to get what they want.

Unless, of course, they just want those extra body count.

>>3710257

Stop.

>>3710257
They didn't "do" it.
They,
Funded + Trained al queda.

Look into Al Queda's relationship with the United States during al quedas lifetime.

>>3710244

>>3710266

Yes, we know this. It's not relevant.

It would also not be the first time that US meddling in foreign affairs has come back to bite them.

>>3710257
The fed came and took all of the steel from ground zero within days. No one knows where it went.

>>3710271
How is this not relevant to 9/11?
Without US assistance, Bin Laden would likely have been killed by the Soviets a long time before 9/11.

>>3710234
then they wouldnt be justified for the shit TSA pulls at the airports these days

>>3710280 How is this not relevant to 9/11?

It's not relevant to the topic here, I meant, since this is involving truther conspiracy theories.

>>3710280
>implying Soviets can do the job better than the USA.
I wouldn't go to /k and say that... unless you are a troll, then go to /k

"Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them."

What I am saying would correspond with the second part of truther claims. That the government knew ahead of time that al queda was planning to attack the United States using hijackers and did nothing, not a single thing, to stop them.

>>3710297
Let me ask you this, would the Soviet Union have lost their invasion of Afghanistan if the United States hadn't helped the Afghani's by providing them with weapons and training?

Because if the Soviet Union had Won in Afghanistan, the Taliban would never had won power then.

>>3710301

Believe what you want, not like I can stop you.

I am going to think differently of you for doing so, tho.

>implying the buildings weren't brought down with help from an outside source
they were drought down by a outside source, a FUCKING PLANE.
I'd like to see you survive being hit by a plane.
ib4 it irrelevant

conspiracy theories that only focus on a small number of fact are irrelevant.
now get to /x where you belong or show me some math and sciences that proves a build that has been hit by a plane does not have its structural integrity affected.

>>3710303
What is Americas excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan?
the sovit occupation is no different to the american intervention, both shitty, costing a lot of lives and a lot of money,
Is the CIA to blame for this.
Go and ask /k, this is more there thing.
We like science and math here not speculation.

>>3709895

>Implying the sinking of the RMS Titanic wasn't an inside job

>>3710303
Is the CIA the reason the British empire lost Afghanistan twice in the 19th century?

Blame mysterious organisations, first rule of conspiracies with no proof.

>>3710301
as the us airforce
you just can run around shooting down every airplane that doesn't radio back to you

it's pretty simple

>shoot down a plane carrying civilians only to find out it wasn't hijacked

or

>let a hijacked plane carrying civilians fly around freely

which do you think the airforce/gov't would rather deal with

a huge fucking snafu in which they kill civilians on their own soil
or
an actual terrorist attack

>>3710000

>matter into energy

>>3710337
> hijackers usually demand a ransom.
risk killing everyone when there is a chance of saving them and bring the terrorist to justice.

>jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to.... etc
>doesn't take into account all of the paper inside of an office building
>doesn't take into account all the wood chairs and furnite inside of an office building
>doesn't take into account all of the plastics inside of an office building

Sure, you can twist the data so it looks like you have a very small chance of being right, but if you're gonna call yourself a truther atleast be intelligent enough to address ALL of the circumstances involved.

>>3709840
> building into 'molten metal'
the buildings didn't melt OP, they collapsed, haven't you seen the footage?

>>3710339
>he think fire gets it energy from peter pan

1)Impact blows fireproof coating off of the beams
2)burning fuel heats beams causing them to sag
3)sagging beams put end connection bolts in shear
4)connections weren't designed for a shearing force(I think the bolts were only 5/8")
5)beams fall, impacting beams below
6)dominoes

>>3710415

>5)beams fall, liquifying all the beams below while simultaneously pulverizing all supporting concrete in 50 floors untouched by heat.

FTFY

>>3710432
>implying the liquid fuel stayed on the impacted floors

>>3710441

>Implying that the liquid fuel ran up and down the stairwells and service elevators and distributed itself evenly among the 95 floors that weren't impacted by the plane, lit itself on fire and got to work weakening the steel columns on all 110 floors simultaneously within 45 minutes.

plenty of victims heard explosions from the boiler room.

how does an airplane crash 80 feet in the air cause explosions underground?

How do reporters say building 7 already fell down minutes before it fell down and wasn't even touched?

A 747 isn't enough to take down an entire 110 story structure. Traces of explosive material all over ground zero. It makes sense why they removed it within seconds.

sci has to be the dumbest board not to realize this was all a setup

>>3710468
>Implying metal doesn't conduct.
>Implying anyone that could observe what happened inside lives to tell.
>Implying you know what you're talking about.
>Implying you're not a fag.

Here's an actual archfag who has spoken to an experienced civil engineer about this, so listen the fuck up.

Jetliners are heavy chunks of metal. They flew into the towers at about 600 kmh, fully laden with fuel. Thats a lot of mass going fucking fast, not to even mention the fuel. The wings cut through structural members. Once a certain number of floors start collapsing, its really all over as the floors below arn't strong enough to stop dead all of that weight landing on them. This is known as the pancake effect and its really common sense.

The second part: picture a thin wooden dowel. If you compress it vertically its very stiff. However as soon as it deflects even a little sideways, it becomes very easy to subsequently snap. This is the same as the wtc columns. The impact of the planes caused the beams to bend or "wobble" ever so slightly off center axis, and at that point the compressive strength of the concrete is nullified and the whole thing "snaps."

TLDR fucking giant planes did it faggots, deal with it. This is from someone who agrees the government would not hesitate to kill thousands of people in a false flag attack but come on - 9/11 is pretty clear cut.

fucking sheeple it was obviously ancient aliens

Archfag here again, just to make it clear for the 9000th time, THE FIRE DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT THE STEEL BEAMS, it merely has to heat them sufficiently to weaken them to the point where they will fail under load, which is well before melting point.

>Implying metal doesn't conduct.
Implying one smoldering office fire on one corner of 4 floors will heat all the steel in a 110 storey building into red hot pokers on all four sides of the building
>Implying anyone that could observe what happened inside lives to tell.
Implying 100+ professional firefighters weren't broadcasting live from the building every minute.
>Implying you know what you're talking about.
Implying I'm not pwning you
>Implying you're not a fag.
Implying you haven't run out of retorts
Implying you had an argument to begin with

>>3710518
>Implying one smoldering office fire on one corner of 4 floors will heat all the steel in a 110 storey building into red hot pokers on all four sides of the building
Implying that happened.
Implying you would know if that happened.
>Implying 100+ professional firefighters weren't broadcasting live from the building every minute.
Implying they were anywhere near the actual impact zone.

>>3710512

The fire was on like about 4 floors you fucktard. And in one building it was just one corner of 3 or 4 floors so if anything the building should have tilted over not simultaneously self pulverized on 110 floors and crumbled to dust into it's own footprint.

>>3710525

Yeah fucktard, four floors of inferno from a fucking jet plane is enough to collapse said floors, and the weight of four floors collapsing suddenly onto one is enough to collapse the floor below it and there you go. Its not rocket surgery.

>>3710525
You can see it covering at least six floors in this picture.

The fire burned out of control for seven hours. No firefighters no sprinklers. You're telling me it never spread?

>>3710521
>Implying that happened.
>Implying you would know if that happened.
Implying there aren't countless videos showing it happened
Implying there isn't testimony from survivors and firemen confirming it happened
>Implying they were anywhere near the actual impact zone.
Implying they weren't in and around the impact zone trying to contain fires while radioing out their positions
Implying heat that can melt steel won't melt firefighters
Implying even when the towers collapsed the video doesn't clearly show smoke coming from less than 10 storeys

>>3710532
What are you saying?
>it happened
What happened?
The steel being really fucking hot? That's what've been saying all along, you fucktard.

>>3710532
Also
>heat that can melt steel won't [will] melt firefighters
That's why it's not surprising that nobody witnessed melting steel (and lived to tell) now is it?

>>3710528
Nope, even if 4 floors did simultaneusly collapse(which they didn't) then the force they exert downwards(force not weight) is not enough to simultaneously demolish 50+ stories. Each floor was built to withstand much much more than the weight of all the floors above it. The kinetic energy gained by 4 floors simultaneously turning to powder is not enough to vaporize all the floors beneath them concurrently.
>>3710531

That's WTC7 I was talking about WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 was also clearly demolished you can tell by looking at the collapse; there isn't even an argument for WTC7 since it wasn't hit by any significant amount of debris and should have been saved.

>>3710547

Where is your source for each floor being able to withstand the weight of four floors above, let alone the entire building. I call bullshit.

>>3710541
>That's why it's not surprising that nobody witnessed melting steel (and lived to tell) now is it?

wtf are you talking about? None of the firefighters died due to heat, they died when the building collapsed and buried them. But you're saying the heat was enough to mysteriously melt the entire steel frame supporting 110 storeys

Ok. So the buildings are theoretically strong enough to withstand the load of a jumbo jet slamming into it. yes...

However. What isn't taken into account is the jet fuel which softens the metal support structures inside the building. SOFTENS, not melts.
Now this is the crucial part. The jet fuel fire is feeding a constant high temperature that heats the support structures to extreme temperatures, but at the same time 800ft above sea level winds are buffeting the structure from the outside, causing a temperature differential which puts stress on the structures. this builds, and the structures crack, distort then lose integrity altogether and fail.
To give a simpler example, when you get a really hot glass and put it under a cold tap it shatters because of heat difference.

Simultaneously, we have the sheer amount of weight pressing from the above floors pressing down with thousands of tonnes of force on a relatively small area.
The laws of inertia state that no winds are going to influence how something so heavy as the floors above the damaged zone falls. The massive weight is so large it can't be influenced, and eventually, with the tower severely weakened, it comes crashing down on itself, just plain flattening the floors below it.

Those are just a few aspects of how they fell. Architecture and other things also play a huge role.

OP was quite obviously trolling, but since all you /sci/entists must prove your intellect, of course you all flock to it.

>>3710554
No, I'm not saying that the entire steel frame melted, that's retarded. I'm saying the proposition that the steel melted isn't supported by evidence, nor does it cause a problem to the mainstream theory if some of the steel melted.
tl;dr "how does steel melting" is irrelevant and nonsense

>>3710487
where are the remnants of the plane that hit the pentagon?

a plane hit the pentagon right?
dickwit

>>3710487

Love how you can't refute any of this post so you come up with a whole different slant regarding a completely different building. Stay classy.

>>3710551

>Where is your source for each floor being able to withstand the weight of four floors above

Floor #1 supported the weight of floors#2 through floor#110(that's 109 floors above it)
Floor #2 supported the weight of floors#3 through floor#110(that's 108 floors above it)
Floor #3 supported the weight of floors#4 through floor#110(that's 107 floors above it)
Floor #4 supported the weight of floors#5 through floor#110(that's 106 floors above it)
and so on...
Each one of the floors were built similarly to each other so the higher you go in the buildings the less downward force would have to be supported since the amount of mass above them would become less and less.

So derrrrp if floor#1 can support 109 floors above it then it can surely support 4 floors? The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the kinetic energy gained from the momentum generated by 4 floors simultaneously collapsing(if they even did that) is going to be more force than the floors beneath were designed to handle.

It's good to see the US has it's own 50 cent club, ruthlessly injecting FUD into any reasoned discussion that might expose its atrocities.

>>3710570

No, you don't understand. The FLOOR doesn't support jack shit, the COLUMNS support all the stories above it. I'm talking about the floor, which is a concrete slab with steel mesh inside. When that weight presses on the floor, of course its going to collapse. Its only meant to hold up people and shit.

>>3710570
>See a plane fly into a building
>Sees structural damage to a buttload of floors.
>Said building collapses.
>???
>The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the kinetic energy gained from the momentum generated by 4 floors simultaneously collapsing(if they even did that) is going to be more force than the floors beneath were designed to handle.
>The burden of proof is on YOU
Hahaha.
7/10

>>3710532
firefighters don't melt stoooooopid!

Ok, I'm going to shut all you conspiracy theorist's up with one simple statement. Let's say that the whole '9/11' thing was a government conspiracy and they planted bombs etc. The plan still requires two planes to crash into the buildings, no getting around that. My argument is this, if the government did plan it, what government employees where willing to sacrifice their lives for this operation and not ask questions? I mean it's absolutely fucking ludicrous what you are saying.

>>3710576
Your theory sucks, if you (and, by extension, the government) are to be believed, we would have been left with a perfect central column standing 100 floors tall.

Leave the science to the honest people who actually have an education instead of sucking the cock of nist you uneducated FUD spreader.

>>3710583
You're not a scientist. Don't pretend to be one.
And even if you are, you're a retard, but more importantly, you're not a structural engineer.

>>3710586
You're not being honest about your motivations, don't pretend to be.

>>3709840

>I find it hard to believe that two little planes can bring down a couple of buildings this large.
>..as well as magically topple another building the next block over without touching it.

Bitches don't know about my argument from incredulity logical fallacy.

I really don't have anything else to contribute to this conversation than the fact that opening a thread with a logical fallacy should have gotten you called out on it.

So instead of joining the debate, I give you guys a gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU

Also, cleavage.

>>3710590
OK, you got me.
Luckily, we have your IP address. Expect a knock.

>>3710596
Take me down and everything I have on you will be released. There will be no hiding, the masses will descend and force the truth from your last breath.

>>3710599
We have our ways.
Maybe we want you to release your data. Keep the people in doubt.

>>3710576

>No, you don't understand. The FLOOR doesn't support jack shit, the COLUMNS support all the stories above it. I'm talking about the floor, which is a concrete slab with steel mesh inside.

When I said FLOOR I meant the STEEL AND CONCRETE SUPPORT STRUCTURES on each floor as being the part of the FLOOR responsible for exerting enough upward force and resisting the downward force from all the mass above it consisting of multiple FLOORS all constructed the same way.

I'm referring to each FLOOR as a sort of a logical entity here since each storey/floor was constructed almost identically to the other 109 floors in the building, amirite?

>>3710578
>Sees structural damage to a buttload of floors.
The structural damage was restricted to about 4 or 5 floors where the plane impacted. That's like 5 out of 110. Not a buttload. Oh and afaik the main support structure of the building was a steel mesh around the center was it not? The inner steel "spinal column" had most of the steel while the outer areas impacted by the 2nd plane was more of a secondary support structure.

>>3710599
I'm calling bullshit.

Hell, I'm not even that guy.

If you were some "Freedom fighter" you wouldn't even bother to threaten anyone. If you believed in the things you purport to believe in then you would feel it is your civic duty as a real American (Well insert your country of origin here) to have the truth out in the open unfettered by personal gain or notoriety.
That you would threaten to dox anyone means you actually have nothing on anyone that would be worth a damn. Otherwise you wouldn't be on 4chan and posting about how the government did this or how you are a freedom fighter for that or that you have key information but are going to threaten others in order to get them to do your will.

How pathetic perhaps this lack of logical reasoning and your subconscious desires for notoriety and respect is what brought you to this point. perhaps if you realized you had to earn respect and had to stand out in some way to really get noticed you would not have ended up this way.

I pity you. I really do.

>>3710606

>Walk into a /sci/ency thread about 911 physics
>Engage in conversation with 10 year old troll who probably lives outside the US
>Entertain the idea he might be a "Freedom fighter"
>Continue being trolled, burying all legit debate

mfw I know this thread will be hijacked by trolls and then buried or deleted

>Arguments about the strength of heated steel.
>Implying the entire metal frame of the building isn't fireproofed.
>Explosion only happened in tiny section of the building, only removed fireproofing on like 10 - 15 floors, steel was only heated on those floors.
>Implying the building was heated downwards to the ground floor from the top through intact fireproofing everywhere without the magic fire burning every single last person inside.
>Tower in the left of picture hit at 2/3rds of it's height, collapsed from the top floor down instead of at the point of impact.
>Implying heat physics matters then ignoring basic information like the fact the majority of the building didn't even get hit, look at the fucking tower on the right, look at it.
>Implying the jet fuel didn't burn up in the explosion, look at the tower on the left.
>took like an hour and a half for the buildings to COLLAPSE, not partially crumble, not to weaken, to completely and utterly collapse and pulverise.

To recap

Fuel that wasn't there remotely heated 100% of the buildings interior steel to structural failure bypassing the fireproofing. The remote properties of heat started random fires up and down the building.
Because of this magic remote heat we can ignore the fact that the fuel burned away in the explosion.
We can also ignore the fact that even with a full tank not enough fuel would be present to even paint the outside of the building. We can ignore this because of the magic infinite remote heating properties of fire. A similar effect can be found when you turn on your stove and your door handles becomes unbearably hot for no reason yet your frying pan is merely warm.
Random 'interior explosions' all the way down to the lobby were actually the remote heat manifesting itself.
Everyone reporting explosions ignorantly.

>>3710620
>Apparently did not realize that there is very little physics discussion going on in the thread anyways.

>MFW bad reading comprehension.

>>3709840

In a controlled demolition, the shaped charges are put on the support structures at the BOTTOM of the building. The building collapses form the BOTTOM UP... Watch the film of the towers.. it collapses from the TOP DOWN. Idiot.

>>3710623
>Arguments about the strength of heated steel.
(Learn to tensile strength)
>Implying the entire metal frame of the building isn't fireproofed.
(Implying fireproofing wasn't knocked off or destabilized due to force of impact and resonance caused by impact)
>Explosion only happened in tiny section of the building, only removed fireproofing on like 10 - 15 floors, steel was only heated on those floors.
(Forgetting what happens when objects hit other objects resulting in the "Butterfly fan" of damage within a structure, human body or otherwise)
>Implying the building was heated downwards to the ground floor from the top through intact fireproofing everywhere without the magic fire burning every single last person inside.
(lolwut?)
>Tower in the left of picture hit at 2/3rds of it's height, collapsed from the top floor down instead of at the point of impact.
(mfw videos endlessly show the collapse initiated at the point of damage)
>Implying heat physics matters then ignoring basic information like the fact the majority of the building didn't even get hit, look at the fucking tower on the right, look at it.
(lol this statement is hilarious on its own)
>Implying the jet fuel didn't burn up in the explosion, look at the tower on the left.
(Implying that an office full of furniture and other flammable objects such as flooring (carpet) walls (Gypsum, which contained nitrates, sulfates, carbonates, and other sources for immolation) would not have caught on fire by jet fuel being sprayed in the instant of impact just prior to immolation and plane destruction)
>took like an hour and a half for the buildings to COLLAPSE, not partially crumble, not to weaken, to completely and utterly collapse and pulverise.
(Implying this is something that is unusual considering structural dynamics...)

MFW..

>>3710623
This magical fire is mainly fuelled by oxygen and fuel and anything flammable in an office building, e.g. furniture, carpet, some structure (doors, banisters etc). but it would remain concentrated.

>>3710570

This is basically saying if you believe in the pancake effect then what is your reasoning for the building to hold itself up in the first place if it is that flimsy. He's right, If the floors could hold up 100+ floors above then the collapse would have ment jack shit starting at the top.

If the building had columns and the floors were structurally insignificant then the pancake effect would destroy the weak floors and leave a skeleton of columns, they would be so strong that 50 planes wouldn't have taken them down.

The pancake effect in both scenarious is bullshit, it's so bad an explanation.
Especially when you consider one of the towers fell from the top but was hit 2/3rd of the way up.
What happened there? Surely the top third would have fallen apart seperately as it ploughed into the bottom 2/3rds?
But no, it falls in an aesthetically pleasing manner regardless of the information given in the official story.

>>3710479
>Traces of explosive material all over ground zero.
the chemical trace material, that people say were from explosive are also found in paint...

>>3710640
And drywall.
Especially the "nano thermite" that they trumpet.

Steven Jones once gave the exact chemical makeup of his nano thermite and then said that traces of the chemicals in nano thermite were found at ground zero.

However, even the most basic thought process should have produced "Is there anything else that can produce these chemical signatures?"

Lo and behold:
An entire tower made of iron (Steel)
Drywall (Gypsum with multiple sulphates and nitrates as well as trace magnesium)
Cars (Pretty much all of above but higher in magnesium) especially the nice shiney pulverized ones.

So in essence, there is little reason to believe that said chemical signatures could have come from anything BUT what is normally found in an office building and that thermite doesn't even need to be invoked to explain their presence.


L2 science conspiracy theorists....

>>3710632

>(Implying fireproofing wasn't knocked off or destabilized due to force of impact and resonance caused by impact)
>knocked off
>Seriously? Forces this great and yet the windows weren't even all broken.....you are scraping the barrel.

>(Forgetting what happens when objects hit other objects resulting in the "Butterfly fan" of damage within a structure, human body or otherwise)
No the remote heating theory covered this completely.

>everything else you said
Fireproofing, fireproofing everywhere

there is not one single recorded control demolition where a building is collapsed top to bottom.

there is however recorded structural failings that have led to building collapsing from top to bottom.

there is all so on record another tower block being destroyed by a plane, and its black box was not recovered.

conspirators either over look this or use it as a example to blame Israel.

Conspirators are like creationist, they only look at selected cause and past examples and focus there time and energy in trying to find the smallest of holes.

> windows weren't even all broken
did you actually watch the footage?
or have you forgotten over time?

oh you guys... how funny

why would the goverment people even conspire if it wasn't for our own good? it all keeps the prices low, our wages high, and all for being happy and world-dominant. Without wars or able to attract lousy masses to spout propagandist shouts for war we wouldn't be as succesful today as we are. I say..MORE WARS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

Here's building 7 clearly just exploding like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

No one had ever taken down skyscrapers before, clearly steel buildings won't just crumble like this and need a different method.
I can't believe people think that the remenants of an exploded jet fuel tank have more energy than fucktons of explosives. OH MY GOD + office furniture and drywall, of course, energy crisis solved people. We can smelt with burning office furniture! We can make vehicle fuel from burning office furniture! It's more powerful than burning jet fuel.
WE CAN DEMOLISH SKYSCRAPERS WITH BURNING OFFICE FURNITURE.
Turns out office furniture is the pinnacle of human invention.

>>3710662

not comparable.

Guys, it was an underground nuke. Google Dmitry Khazelkhov.

Btw, it says in the official 911 report that 7 of the hijackers are still alive.

Yep, powerfull people never get together and make a plan, that never happens.

I remember watching a couple of videos from university engineering departments after 9/11.
One of them was the university of manitoba I think?
Anyways in both cases the lecturers weren't even debating wether or not it was explosions or planes, they just intellectually and systematically raped the pancake effect for all it was worth because it was known to be bullshit from the start. What people don't realise is the truther information comes from engineers, chartered proffesionals who build machines that hold sway over the lives of people. Bad maths and physics from these people would mean the modern world would stand still and millions would die.
In one of the videos the speaker reads out the pancake effect and the entire lecture hall bursts out laughing.
He's like "no seriously it's right here, they are actually saying that".
It's so ridiculous he has to confirm he's not joking.
If you want to see qaulified career engineers sytematically breaking down the pancake effect just go on to youtube or google vids, you can watch hours of detailed analysis of every single facet of the theory.

>>3710723
not science, go away

>>3710723
>>3710723

links?

>>3710723
[citation needed]
Science isn't quoting what scientists say. Science is showing (falsifiable) evidence.

I've reviewed the seismographs of 9/11 and there is no indication of a precursor detonation.

to all those conspiracy fags who are like "hurr durr, no plane hit tower 7!! controlled demolition mm-kay?"
watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI&feature=feedf

>>3710734

But disputing the pancake theory is science, is it not? Anon is simply bringing up the topic of the pancake theory not holding up to basic laws of physics.

>>3710739

What do you need links for when the pancake theory is being attacked in this very thread?

>>3710760
I saw the entire show of that. It was conspiracy vs science show. Basically the engies showed that the steel used in the WTC would easily soften at jetfuel-burning temps, and the conspiracy theorists herp derped.

>>3710772
disputing it with some examples and models is science. anything else is merely speculation.
as my grandmother use to say

>>3710723
pancake effect.
floors don't support floors.
floors are attached to the central column by joints.
these joints take the wait of one floor.
detach a floor and add it on the one bellow.
repeat till joints cant take wait.
move all detached floors down to the to the next floor.
can't take wait.
move down again to the floor bellow.
can't take combined weight.
keep repeating till you reach the ground

>>3710647

It's trivial to blow the building from top to bottom and make the controlled demolition look unlike any other conventional demolition. If you assume that the towers were to be demolished you also have to assume that the demolition is going to be made to look as little like a conventional demolition and as much like a "collapse" as possible derrrrp.

I mean come on, if someone is going to be demolishing a building and trying to sell it off as a structural collapse then they wouldn't rig it to visibly explode from bottom to top, would they? Nope the demolition has to be as well disguised as humanly possible.

All you have to do is make sure that the top floors do not encounter any significant force underneath them when they come tumbling down otherwise the world would see the top 20 floors tumble, then a pause and the next 50 floors explode, then a pause and then the rest of the building go poof. When you look at the video you see a section of the middle of the towers collapse and then the top few dozen floors drop down at near freefall speeds(impossible anyway because the rest of the intact floors should have resisted their momentum easily).

What we saw was a collapse where a section of 4 of 5 floors near the top crumbled and then the structure above them dropped into a murky cloud which was supposedly formed by 20 stories pulverizing 80 stories underneth them at freefall speed(lol).

Technically speaking the above could have been accomplished by demolishing the 4 or 5 midsection floors where the plane impacted to make it look like that was the start of the "chain reaction" and then a split second later demolishing every single other steel beam on all the floors underneath them top down rather than bottom up. This way the top section of the building falls into a murky cloud created by the demolition of all the floors underneath the first explosion. Quite consistent with what we saw on video.

>>3710787

There's some very simple models in this very thread here >>3710570 here >>3710623 and here >>3710636

You'll notice that none of these posts were touched by any of the "debunkers" because they sensed this was definately a path they didn't want to follow.

>people think they planted explosives on the floors the planes hit at
>they think the hijackers could actually aim at the proper floor they put explosives at while traveling over 500mph.

You guys are terribly stupid.

>>3710829
who the fuck said that? lol why would they plant explosives AND crash a plane into it. fucking overkill...

>>3710802

>floors don't support floors.
>can't take combined weight.

How did the building ever stand up in the first place then if it's so flimsy? Each one of the floors is built to withstand the weight of 100 storeys above it. Exactly how much extra "wait" or properly put FORCE would it take to crush one of these floors? The amount of momentum built up by one, two or four floors collapsing SIMULTANEOUSLY would have to exert enough force on the floor beneath it to cause that floor to collapse, right? But we know that only a half dozen or so floors had a fire to begin with and even assuming that this office fire was enough to weaken the steal on THOSE floors the collapsing structure would still have to contend with the solid floors underneath them.

Also, people complaining that the fires couldn't weaken the steel enough to fail?

You're forgetting something.

An airplane nearly as wide as the building itself, flew into it at hundreds of miles per hour, cutting through multiple support pillars, and then exploding, damaging even more support pillars. So the building's integrity was already borderline fucked before it burned for the next hour or so. The fires just weakened the few support pillars that remained.

Really, the fact that the buildings held up as long as they did with that kind of an impact is pretty remarkable.

>>3710835

>why would they plant explosives AND crash a plane

The crashing planes part is to make it appear that terrists hate your freedoms. The explosives were to make sure the entire buildings collapsed to reinforce the idea that terrists hate your freedoms THAT MUCH.

>>3710840
I can hold 50 kilo's, but I can't hold 50 kilos that suddenly drop about 10 meters (<5 stories). Basic physics.

I've come here to tell everyone ITT that you're either morons or trolls.

That is all.

>>3710847

Assuming the fires weakened steal at all they would only weaken steel gradually on one side of about 4 or 5 floors. That doesn't explain how the supporting steel structures on 110 floors simultaneously weakened in a fraction of a second. You're basically postulating that a theoretical weakness in steel on one corner of about 5 floors in a 110 story skyscraper can set of a chain reaction that turns the entire scyscraper into rubble and dust in less than 15 seconds. A bit of a leap there anon.

>>3710840
you clearly don't understand how steel frame building are constructed.
You build a frame, then attach the floors to it.
With the trade centre tower the frame was a core running up the middle of a building, on the side of the core you bolt the floors.
the core holds the building up, the floor are attached to the core.

>>3710858

What.

All it took for it to collapse is one floor to fail, that's it. From there, the momentum of the entire upper portion of the building falling that small distance was enough to cause the floor below impact to buckle under the weight.

This isn't rocket science. Say for example you can bench 150 pounds. Great. Now what if instead of just holding it up yourself, someone dropped it ten feet onto you. You wouldn't be able to support it, and you'd end up with some missing teeth.

The floors below, while not affected by the fire, could not handle that sudden increase in weight.

>>3710854

You're assuming that 5 floors of the WTC suddenly ceased to exist. This didn;t happen but lets assume for the sake of argument that it did happen and the dozen floors above it start falling down at freefall speed into the remaining 80 or so floors. In order for lets say the 80th floor to collapse under this extra force it would have to be incapable of handling the extra force generated by the top dozen floors accelerating down the space of 5 storeys. Amirite?

But each floor *is* designed to handle a force much greater than the one it would experience with this alleged momentum gain.

>>3710872
> extra force generated by the top dozen floors accelerating down the space of 5 storeys
>each floor *is* designed to handle a force much greater than the one it would experience with this alleged momentum gain.
Dumbest thing I've read in months. My only hope is that you're trolling.

>>3710878
>Dumbest thing I've read in months. My only hope is that you're trolling.
See
>>3710857
>>3710857
>>3710857

It is central core that take the weight of the building.
The floors are attached to the central core, if you pile up enough floors on top of each other, they will eventually give way and weaken the core.

>>3710878

I wish I could hate you to death. Really. You're amazingly stupid. Or maybe I'm being trolled hardcore.

No, each floor was not designed to catch a falling building on top of it. Now go die.

>>3710871

>the momentum of the entire upper portion of the building falling that small distance was enough to cause the floor below impact to buckle under the weight.

Err no. The momentum is not just tackled by ONE FLOOR but by all the floors from ground level up to the highest undamaged floor. Yes, the bulk of the momentum would be absorbed by the topmost resilient floor but momentum is merely extra force. Mass only gains 22 feet per second in velocity with no resistance and there was plenty of resistance and shock absorbtion created by the crumbled material of these floors themselves.

>>3710885
the central core, allows for open office space.

>>3710891
>merely
>only
>plenty
You're a moron.

I hear 9/11 was caused by trolls.

I don't really care who did it. But the official report was horrible. Not even pointing out how the towers fell too fast for the planes to be the only cause of the collapse.

That stuff shouldn't be allowed to happen.

>>3710884
>each floor *is* designed to handle a force much greater than the one it would experience with this alleged momentum gain.
>Dumbest thing I've read in months.
>My only hope is that you're trolling.

Nope, already laid it out here: >>3710570

Each floor has identical construction wrt supporting steel structure. Fact is floor #1 had been supporting 109 floors above it for 30 years. Since floor#1 and floor#110 are constructed in an identical fashion it's obvious that floors#2 through floor#109 are also identical in terms of their ability to handle a force of X newtons applied evenly on top of them.

So basically, if X is the number of newtons that floor#1 can support for 30 years running and Y is the number of newtons that floor#80 could not support for the fraction of a second when you claim the top floors fell on top of it after 5 stories collapsing then in order for your postulation to hold any weight you'd have to assume that Y > X at the very least.

>>3710910
>I can hold 50 kilos
>therefore I can hold 50 kilos dropped from several stories
No.

>>3710910
If the materials are perfectly rigid (which they're not, btw), the extra force on impact is infinite.
So how far can the floor that has to catch bend? Suppose can bend up to 10 cm without breaking. That means that the force of the incoming top of the building is a 100 times heavier then it's weight (10 meters of freefall, vs 10 cm of stopping). Obviously that doesn't work. But if the top floor bends more then 10 cm, it'll break. So it breaks.

>>3710885
>>3710895

So what's your point then, that the collapse of 4 trusses with the office equipment and furniture on them is enough to warp 100 stories worth of central core steel and perimeter tubes without encountering any resistance created by pressing down VERTICALLY on VERTICAL steel beams into a 30 foot high pile of dust and rubble?

they had a demolition squad working for months. planting explosives in every floor.

when the sun goes down the huge squad gets into the building they plant explosives very carefully so no one notces.

then clean up the mud from the carpet and leave. its in nostradumbus.,

>>3709840
>implying i give a fuck

it was fucking 10 years and it doesn't fucking matter anymore, get the fuck over it.

>>3710908
>Not even pointing out how the towers fell too fast for the planes to be the only cause of the collapse.
Not this bullshit again. It's not true.

inb4 you link me to the bullshit debunked videos. And yes, the report directly addresses fall rates.

>>3710929
Classic case of someone who thinks they intuitively know more than civil engineers do about large buildings and their failure modes.

>>3710930
> its in nostradumbus.,
I laughed.

>>3710910
the core supports the 109 floors.
the floors don't support each other, because they were open planed.
the floors are attached to the core.
de-attach a floor from the core it is going to fall on the one bellow.
If you de-attach enough floor you will eventually get a combined weigh that exceeds the limitation of the joins at the core. Leading to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhnzTXQJ56o

13 part run down architects and engineers for 9/11 truth

>still not acknowledging the third jetliner on the grassy knoll

>>3710923

There was nothing "dropped from several stories" where it was allowed to build up free fall momentum. Unless of course you're saying that 5 floors were instantly pulvarized by explosives? lulz no that's what you're trying to dispute.

Everything that came down would have to fall THROUGH several storeys of concrete, asbestos, carpets, aluminum reinforcement and....

>>3710941
>architects and engineers for 9/11 truth
scientists and climatologists for truth about the climate change hoax!

why does it matter?

>>3710945
It was following an argument made by one of the truther/trolls ITT, which claimed exactly that - drop the top floors five stories down and the next floor it hits can take it (lolno).

And yes, as soon as one or two floors collapse it's a rapid chain reaction.

>>3710929
more like the internal collapse of 6 or more floor plus the combined weight of a aircraft and with the expansion of metal weaken key joints form.

>>3710942

Princess diana faked the WMD dossier and the obama administration faked the mission to kill her and claimed they dumped her body in the sea to coverup

>>3710949
Anthropologists and biologists for truth about intelligent design!

Just once I would like to see a thread about debunking this, not about making the outlandish unsubstantiated claims

there was a time at which I'd be willing to talk with any conspiracy theorist, it has now passed. Google "9/11 debunked".

>>3710955
Also, it turns out that, surprisingly enough, Obama was born in Hawaii. However, he's still a reptilian.

>>3710941
>Puts truth in title
>From america

I do not believe this anymore.

>>3710924

What the fuck are you trying to say here?

they should of left the fucking web up.
taking it down is the biggest mistake ever!

>>3710953

>as soon as one or two floors collapse it's a rapid chain reaction

No it's not. That's never been seen before and the floors don't "drop" either there's just some trusses that would have ONE SIDE of them drop down to the one below but there's plenty of resistance to go through and not enough mass to build up a "chain reaction". Either lay out the specifics or STFU with your unsubstantiated theories

>>3710959
>Just once I would like to see a thread about debunking this, not about making the outlandish unsubstantiated claims
It's just the problem you allude to - all the conspiratard arguments have already been debunked, and yet they (and trolls) still put forward the same arguments. It's pointless.

Reading through the debunking pages on various conspiracies is interesting sometimes. And the amount of cherry-picking and doublethink required to still be on the conspiratard side is amazing.

I mean, they could at least make halfway PLAUSIBLE arguments, like that someone in the CIA (or maybe even Bush) knew about the attacks in advance and allowed them intentionally. You still have your conspiracy, but orders of magnitude less retardation in your claims.

I don't believe that is the case, but no, conspiratards are all off in left field talking about explosives and missiles and nanothermite. Morons.

So...how about that video from the gas station, of the object striking the CIA headquarters?

>>3710980
>No it's not. That's never been seen before
Shut the fuck up, you're embarrassing yourself.

>Either lay out the specifics or STFU with your unsubstantiated theories
The gaping flaws in your arguments have already been pointed out ITT, by others even more clearly than I have. Like the guy talking about the actual structure of the building, and how floors connect to the core. You're basically saying "no way couldn't happen, if the building stays up at all it must stay up after a huge structural impact and jet-fuel fires make the top third of the building fall on the lower floors, because of course it's strong enough"

>Implying perfectly timed equal collapse under any circumstances other than demolition

If the floors fell they would never perfectly collapse into the footprint of the building.
The heating wouldn't be equal because the impact damage and the following fire damage wasn't equally spaced so the fall wouldn't be equal.
Pieces of the building would fall off and to the side at random times.
The core would prevent equal collpse, the fireproofing would prevent equal heating.
It wouldn't matter if there was no fireproofing of any kind, perfect collapse is just impossible.


The pancake theory should be re named 'The twin towers health bar one hit K.O theory'

>>3710968
It seemed very clear to me. He's using concepts of plasticity and stopping force/distance to show why the lower floors can't take a large amount of falling debris.

So, to all of you who take the simple explanation out and say that the towers were terribly weak (or not, depending on how stupid you are) and simply collapsed when 1/5 or something of its own weight fell down upon it.

How do you explain how fast it fell. And the metal melting although Kerosene can't melt metal.

Leaving those questions unanswered and saying that someone with a theory on it is wrong doesn't make sense.

>>3711008
> metal melting
why do you conspirators keep saying the building melted, it didn't melt it collapsed.

>>3711002
>If the floors fell they would never perfectly collapse into the footprint of the building.
Armchair civil engineers FTW!

What, did you expect it to fall to sideways? Really?

This thread is trolls arguing things that have been debunked over and over again.

I'm out.

>>3710954

>more like the internal collapse of 6 or more floor
What exactly happened with these 6 floors? The trusses fell down right? The outer steel mesh and the inner vertical steel beams stayed intact amirite? So basically you had all the desks, sofas, printers and copy machines on each truss on these weakened floors collapse about 12 feet onto the next truss and bam! it hits a truss with equal mass that is not yet moving down and there goes your momentum.

Momentum effectively divided by half.
Kinetic energy from momentum dissipated in shock waves
Some shock waves from momentum dissipate into sound energy
Vertical steel beams in core of building unaffected by trusses
Vertical beams on outer hull warped inwards at best? No visual evidence of such btw.
>expansion of metal weaken key joints form.
But these joints are just the joints that join the trusses to the inner and outer vertical steel beams amirite? How does that magically melt 110 storeys of vertical steel beams?
>weight of a aircraft
lol an aircraft is basically two engines and a gigantic aluminum "skin" and if you look at the second tower it basically nicked the corner of the building.

>>3711030
lawdeh

>Momentum effectively divided by half.
Followed by
>two floors fall the next twelve feet
>twice the momentum before contacts floor below

>>3711030
>melt 110 storeys of vertical steel beams
>Vertical beams on outer hull warped inwards
> if you look at the second tower it basically nicked the corner of the building.

This post is full of retardation. Just wanted you to know.

>>3711019
So that tall building fell into it's own footprint leaving a small pile of rubble? It wasn't high enough, and there was (well supposedly, I haven't actually gone there to check while it was there) melted metal going out the sides of the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
Witnesses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0
Video proof supposedly. Could be faked though. If you're insane.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist I don't really care who did it. I don't go outside of reason. But if these guys are telling the truth and that footage isn't faked. Yeah, stuff melted and kerosene can't do that.

Now if you have an explanation that doesn't say the terrorists/whoever did this planted explosives or termite as some people theorize.

Go ahead. I don't mind. Throw whatever you want and I'l consider it.

>>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941

>>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941

>>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941 >>3710941

Guys, this is copypasta from /x/

You've all been trolled.

>>3711021

Do you believe it collapsed into it's footprint? After burning for an hour and a half? At near freefall speed? If the floors smashed into each other then why did they freefall? Why would they offer NO RESISTANCE.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx0lDIttCws&NR=1

part 9 of the presentation, 1:30 freefalling issues discussed.

>>3711030
Well actually the airplanes can weigh some. Especially with people in them.

But they're not weighing extremely much.

>>3711072
it really doesn't look that strong does it?
>>3711030
can you see in the pic i liked above.
Can you possibly say that that join can take the weight of six floors and a aircraft?

>>3711072
a plane couldn't do serious damage to a flimsy floor and joint like that...
oh wait it did.

fuck it, i'll get involved.

discus.

>>3710994
>The gaping flaws in your arguments
Which gaping flaws?

>Like the guy talking about the actual structure of the building, and how floors connect to the core.

What the fuck are you trying to say? The "floors" connect to the core and the outer skin which makes it further obvious that the pancake theory is bullshit because in order to gain momentum each truss would have to fall down ATTACHED to it's corresponding central core steel beams and simultaneously warp the central core beams directly downwards which is a ridiculous postulation because firstly in order to "crush" the central core steel beams floor by floor do you know how much of the momentum of each truss would be spent? Probably like 500 fucking percent. In other words its physically impossible.

I can't believe fucktards have been entertaining this bullshit pancake theory for 10 fucking years. The amount of kinetic energy needed by all the mass on a truss to completely crush the vertical steel colums on the floor beneath them is about five fucking times the kinetic energy an entire floor would pick up by falling through fucking air for 50 fucking feet at least.

The other option is if the trusses ignore the steel beams and just fall down on the other trusses in a "chain reaction". Well that's bullshit too because at some point the dropping sofas will just stop dropping because each floor cushions their impact and creates more and more of a resistance as more and more junk gets caught up.

>>3710487
You're a liar if you claim you study architecture. Skyscrapers like the wtc are designed to bend and wobble to withstand severe weather, strong winds and guess what PLANES! I worked in a lawfirm where on certain days you could feel the building swaying, but it was general knowledge that the wobble was keeping us safe.

>Engineers, i'm calling bullshit on this.

I'm reasonably competent with demolitions and ballistics and 9/11 happened how it says on the tin. Any military or civillian jet pilot course will explain the repercussions both to the structure of the aircraft and the building. Everything from scrapes and near misses to the situation in 9/11 is detailed.

Nothing needs to melt or warp, the sheer force of a fully loaded jet airliner hitting a skyscraper at about 400mph is ample enough to cause that level of damage. Anything bigger than a Cessna is going to kill occupants of the building and anything bigger than a G5 jet is going to cause serious structural problems.

The "melting" you're all discussing is what happens when you exert huge amounts of pressure onto steel. It's a structure - any civil engineer or builder will tell you what happens when you suddenly shift a load of weight onto steel pointing vertical, it bends like a tree branch.

As the plane hit it warped the structure and blew a hole in the side of the building. As the side of the building started to collapse the weight above dropped, warped the steel and it fell.

The US gov may have been involved but they certainly did not blow it up and the planes did the damage, not any sort of conventional explosive.

>>3711103
Doesn't seem too inaccurate. Planes are quite weak structurally. But that whole story is completely destroyed.

>>3711072
Is this supposed to be WTC or just something else to stir up the discussion?

>>3711120

They aren't designed to bend downward.

>>3711093

>Plane damages outer metal skin on one corner of about 3 floors
>Therefore it can pulverize 110 stories within 45 minutes
>Case closed

All I want for Christmas is a 10 year old dead carcass

Hey conspiracy nuts.
How did the aircraft manage to crash just above where the explosives where planted?

Steel structures never fail because of fire alone.

>>3711141
Real question is how you know where they were supposedly planted.

Where did you get this information.

Also calling everyone who doesn't believe the official story conspiracy nuts is just wrong.

>>3711132
Its WTC.

>>3711142
Depends on what's burning of cause. And metal can weaken because of fire. I mean, the metal doesn't need to be fully melted for the tower to collapse of cause.

>>3711144
Because the builds fell from where the planes entered.
so for it to be a controlled explosion the first explosion must be here.
As it cant be on the same floor as the burning plane, or above because fire rises and the plane could of severed the destination cored, it must be bellow.

>>3711122

>As the side of the building started to collapse
If the side of the building had started to collapse it would have been evident in the video footage don't you think? I mean as we can see from the pictures and diagrams posted here there was an outer metalic shell and an inner central core composed of vertical steel beams reinforced by horizontal steel beams. So if this steel structure did indeed collapse on one SIDE as you allege why is that collapse not visible in viodeo footage? All we see is a collapse appearing to originate in the central core of the towers followed by the entire lower portion of the buildings turning to dust in identical fashion with both towers.

>As the side of the building started to collapse the weight above dropped, warped the steel and it fell.

It fell at close to freefall speed for almost 100 storeys. Don't you think the remaining inner core and outer steel core would put up enough resistance to stop the collapse at some point or ohhh at least make everything not fall as fast as it would just falling through thin air?

>>3711158
>>3711158
free fall my ass.

>>3711157
Wait. Why can't it be above again? Because the fire rises?
I really don't see how that matters in any way.

Oh and most theorize it being termite. Meaning that there's no real force to the explosion. More of a sudden heating.

And assuming it is that now, though I have no real idea of what explosive or whatever was used (you don't either right). Why can't they just have filled the towers pretty much.

I really don't see why remote explosives couldn't be controlled in such a way that they blow the ones below the impact zone first and possibly the rest during the fall or shortly after.

It's not an amazing feat.

>>3711169
Now you're just being silly.
Assuming that graph is true (I won't be botherd to look for stats) it's still way too fast.

Do you seriously believe that ~1/3 extra of freefall would be enough for it to actually be enough to make it a normal collapse?

We need to destroy some buildings. I'm no real expert on demolition (like most people) but just 2-3 extra seconds doesn't seem likely.

God damnit. /sci/ I wanted to discuss this more.

>>3711037

>lawdeh
>Momentum effectively divided by half.

The momentum of every single object will be divided by at least half if the velocity is cut in half since the mass will remain the same. Assuming that a portion of a truss say, carrying a sofa, goes and hits an identical sofa on the lower floor then the immediate effect will be the velocity of the first sofa being cut in half just based on the law of conservation of momentum. We're not done yet however. The sofa that it hit on the lower floor was being held up by the tensile strength of the truss beneath it which will have to be dealt with breaking that truss loose from the outer shell and the inner core. That will cost in terms of heat and sound energy which means that the original kinetic energy that was driving the first sofa is further reduced. When these two sofas fall down to the third floor at least 1/3 of the kinetic energy they are BOTH holding will have to be expended. Point being that these collapsing floors in theory are not gathering momentum as easily as a steel ball being thrown from the top floor of the WTC.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that if these trusses were indeed collapsing "pancake style" then half, a fourth or a smaller fraction of each truss would collapse first, taking furniture down with it one or two floors until the "momentum" was dampened sufficiently.

It's ludicrous to postulate that each pancake collapse is simultaneously taking down a truss with precise symmetry while concurrently warping the central steel cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QIhttp://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u
FJa9WUy5QI

Fuck off faggots.

>>3711217

Why aren't you then?

>>3711192
You really don't understand demolition explosives do you.
You cant have them above the zone of impact encase the impact damages or loosens part of the detonation equipment... no way to fix it.
having the fire spread to explosives is far to risky in a controlled detonation, it cold set them off early. Destroying only one floor, before they other floors are ready to be detonated. it would be just embarrassing that a minute after impact the top lot of floor collapsed out of control... defeats the point of going to all this length to collapse it all in on it self.

so answer me this, how did they get the planes to hit the buildings in the correct places?

>>3711227
Because the thread had been dead for more than 10 minutes excepting my posts.

>>3711217
You are in the wrong place. Read the debunking pages if you want intelligent content.

>>3711192

>termite

Why go to all the trouble of collapsing the buildings, i'm sure the planes would of been enough to get what ever they wanted to get out of it.

what was the point of it again, something about a oil pipe line that was never built?

>>3711238
>Read the debunking pages if you want intelligent content.

He wants intelligent debate not content.

>>3711246
>He wants intelligent debate not content.
There are some positions which cannot be defended intelligently.

Would you like to debate whether Santa Claus exists? You take the pro side.

>>3711229
The thing is that if it's termite it doesn't really matter as much if it sets off early or not. I'm not really sure on how termite is ignited though.

Hitting the building correctly can't be that hard really. Right? It wasn't a random crash supposedly. Everyone believes that. I hope.
The government blames it on the terrorists the conspiracy terrorists blame it on some mix i suppose and the terrorists blame it on themselves.

How big would the error margin be btw.

How much above the explosives could they hit? Enough for the smoke to cover it? Then they had quite a margin (I'm only assuming I'm right here I might be wrong).


So, my answer would be good aiming I guess?

And considering >>3711072
for example many say that the building wasn't really that strong to begin with.

Increasing probability of the collapse overall.

Again, no expert. Relying solely on hearsay and common sense here.

>>3711263
I'm Santa, want proof? Wait till Christmas.

>>3711276
Bullshit, I stayed up all night last year and you never came.

>>3711169

What about all the resistance from the mass of the bottom ohhh 80 or so floors? How many fractions of a second would each one of those floors pause the mass falling into it? Firstly they have a mass of their own which will dampen the momentum of anything falling down on it and secondly there's the upward force exerted by the undamaged steel central cores and outer steel skin. 3 seconds of total pause? 0.05 seconds ONLY per floor?

>>3711282
did you get a present?

>>3711263
While I agree that not everything can be defended I still have unanswered posts here at the bottom.

Also people care less and less about finding out what's right and more about being "right".

Which is terrible. I'm a person who can easily be convinced if I hear something compelling. Being critical is important but I feel this thread is full of morons who can't accept to be wrong. Both sides of cause.

Can't stand discussing like that.

>>3711263

Doesn't matter what you think. He wants to engage in /sci/entific debate and you can't do that on a debunking site with strawman arguments and red herrings laid out by shills.

>>3711285
I'd be scared to jump in that building.

>>3711272
> Relying solely on hearsay and common sense
You are doing this as wrong as it is possible to do it.

But you also sound less crazy than the conspiratards, probably because you don't have the same emotional need to believe in a conspiracy.

>>3711287
Not from Santa. Not even coal.

>>3711293
>a debunking site with strawman arguments and red herrings laid out by shills.
Oh wow the irony.

It's the conspiratards that cherrypick and ignore evidence, assume "common sense" agrees with their conclusions, etc. Really, have you read any of the debunking stuff?

>>3711272

>for example many say that the building wasn't really that strong to begin with.

>110 storiess of steel beams and trusses
>All floors of identical construction
>Lower floors support top 100 floors
>Stays rock solid for 30 years
>wasn't really that strong to begin with.

>>3711295
Yeah but what would the error margin be mr demolition expert. (By comparison you would be)


And how would you have an emotional need to believe something that may or may not be wrong. I can't really fathom how you would feel strongly enough about a belief that you would rather disregard arguments you hear.

And >>3711226
Considering how realistic that explanation looks and sounds.
Couldn't something similar happen with the WTC's?

Or was the fire exclusively up there at the top despite how long it was on fire.

>>3711299
I, Santa, am a cunning bastard. I some times disguise my presents as if they were from a loved one.
Other times my gift is one you can not see, like curing someone of illness they didn't no know they had.
Other times I do fuck all.
Depends on what mood I'm in.

My dad was a firefighter in 9/11. I was 11 when I had to bury my dad.

I once fell over, no plane hit me. Was it the work of the CIA?

>>3711323
So, do you hate the Jews for what they did to him?

>>3711312
Well a chair can hold for a very long time without collapsing. Doesn't mean that it's a sturdy chair. It's simply properly cared for.

My argument wasn't that the WTC wasn't an adequate building to be in during those 30 years. Simply that when they said it was plane proof they were lying. Or just weren't counting on such big planes.

There's been nothing to put extreme stress on it right? And there's been renovating in that building.

>>3711317
>And how would you have an emotional need to believe something that may or may not be wrong. I can't really fathom how you would feel strongly enough about a belief that you would rather disregard arguments you hear.
The vast majority of humans feel this way about one topic or another. Very few humans really want the truth in all things. Nothing you can say will change their minds, because they're not interested in having the truth on that topic. They want to believe something because it serves and emotional function.

Why do you think white supremacists are overwhelmingly poor and less-educated? Their belief that their problems are someone else's fault, and that they are intrinsically valuable or superior due to their race, is a coping mechanism.

>>3711332
His dad wasn't Jesus, but a fire-fighter... easy to mix them too up, so i'll let you off.

>>3711323
Sad, my grandmother died when I was 13. Might be nothing like losing a parent but it really hurt.
>>3711331
Silly
>>3711332
Silly

Why not try keeping it on topic?

>>3711309

I think I know how debunking sites work. First, disinfo agents spread fucktarded arguments that appeal to sceptics at first glance. These ideas are promoted in alterspace by shills who usually argue with other shills preferably in controlled mediums of exchange such as forums, blog comment space and especially talk radio and podcast shows. The end result is that certain fucktarded ideas and theories become really popular. After letting these stories circulate for a bit the debunking sites pop up in order to "checkmate" all the people caught up in the web of deceit. The end result is the offical story gains credibility and respect while the sceptics gain disdain. Especially in the eyes of someone who stumbles across these sites without having invested any time whatsoever in debating the issues per se. I doubt anon would be interested in such a site which is why he wants to debate live with live /sci/entists

>>3711319
>Other times my gift is one you can not see
SANTA OF THE GAPS!

>>3711337
Yes but why join a discussion on the topic in that case? Why would you try and make up something that sounds correct so that other people should believe the same thing when it serves a function to you and others believing the same wouldn't really affect you?

Am I naive?

Oh and a guess on error margin would be nice. Or just say that you don't know so I can stop nagging.

>>3711347
Conspiratards are completely capable of coming up with their own bullshit.

Do you think Bart Sibrel (moon hoaxer) is a government agent or something?

And yes, coming to 4chan looking to get serious discussion of 9/11 was still a dumb idea.

For instance, no one ITT is discussing the reasonable conspiracy theories, like elements of the Bush administration having advance knowledge of the attack and turning a blind eye.

Why is that? Morons and trolls.

>>3711333

The plane just hit a small part of the building. And on just one corner in the case of the 2nd tower to be hit. If anything it should have keeled over like the leaning tower of Pisa. Everything about the physics of the collapse is wrong.

>>3711355
>Why would you try and make up something that sounds correct so that other people should believe the same thing when it serves a function to you and others believing the same wouldn't really affect you?
Conspiratards want to feel that they have special knowledge, that the world is entirely controlled by human interests (not an impartial and random universe), that their problems are due to the evil and secret actions of Them, and that they are superior to those who do not agree with their claims to special knowledge. All things can be twisted to support their views, and all things which disagree are due to stupidity (sheeple lol) or the direct agents of Them in disguise. It's delusion.

Cranks are similar.

Really, go look at conspiratard forums sometime. If you join and agree with them, they won't praise you. They want attention, recognition, and the chance to assert superiority over everyone else. They argue over who gets credit and status and bragging rights.

They were never interested in truth, and they will never, ever change their minds.

>>3711364
I agree that there's something we're (I'm?) not seeing.

Oh and your Pisa tower theory is quite insane as it leans because it was built on marshland.

And something I'd rather consider than it falling over is that it simply collapses at the top. Or the top part falls off. The whole building falling over is crazy.

>>3711364
>If anything it should have keeled over like the leaning tower of Pisa. Everything about the physics of the collapse is wrong.
Did you get your degree in civil engineering from Looney Tunes University? Because this is flat-out wrong.

>>3711382
That picture is lying.
It wasn't a welded structure clearly.

Can someone please explain to me why so many of the public buy the official story of the collapse of these storage shelves?

The fork lift truck didnt move with enough force to displace all those items on the shelves and the structural damage to a single support would not have been enough to weaken all shelves to the point of collapse.

The way the shelving fell into its own footprint despite the fact we are told and "shown" it was struck from the side is clear evidence of foul play

The neighbouring storage shelves were not even hit by the fork lift truck but they also collapsed. If that does not prove to you this was a field test for optical stealth anti-shelving clean demolition missiles then you are a deluded sheep

>>3711395
lol

There is no evidence under which conspiratards will change their minds. It is exactly like the birthers. They said they wanted to see the long-form birth certificate before they'd be convinced, because the short form wasn't enough for them. But they were lying - not even the long form was enough. Nothing will ever be enough. They were never pursuing truth, much less rationally.

>WHURR DA LONG FORM? WHUR?
>here you go
>NO DAT FAKE. WHURR? WHURR?

>>3711361
>Conspiratards are completely capable of coming up with their own bullshit.
Yeah they are but when the matter is important enough they can get a lot of unwanted help. Professional help.

>Do you think Bart Sibrel (moon hoaxer) is a government agent or something?

An agent possibly. Or something. Government? Not necessarily. It's not like every shill has to be on a government payroll. There's a lot of money and power in this world and especially in this country that lives and works outside government offices.

>For instance, no one ITT is discussing the reasonable conspiracy theories, like elements of the Bush administration having advance knowledge of the attack and turning a blind eye.

Nobody here gives a fuck about that. This is /sci/. We come here to talk /sci/ence not /pol/itics. We know Bush knew about *something* happening in advance; he's the fucking president ffs. We know he was shit scared in florida reading that baby goat story because he was afraid he might be assasinated that day and was hesitant to get on marine1. We know he presided over the recycling of all the rubble on the crime scene against SOP in order to destroy evidence. We know Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down on record. We know dozens of Mossad operatives were caught in vans with explosives on 9/11. We know dozens of other facts but we do. not. care. because on here in this thread we are /sci/entists just discussing the technical details wrt physics. We're not interested in being /his/torians or in starting /pol/itical discussions.

>>3711386
Ok I can see the point in it feeling good to have others envy you. I'v felt that. But not anonymous people. And not about something that's just a historical event where you have no concrete proof.

If I was envyd by a bunch of anons for discovering the graviton that would be something. But not for thinking something about a 10 year old tower collapsing.

>conspiratard forums
Where? I need to study them..

>>3711392
What are you hiding in that .png image, Anon? It's way too long for a 50x50 png file that is all one color, and contains all sorts of script-language-like stuff.

>>3711407
>And not about something that's just a historical event where you have no concrete proof.
Welcome to the dark side of human psychology.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

>>3711403
No, just look at the video of that.

You're just trying to troll me aren't you?

What I'm saying is that a weak structure made out of a few pillars is not the same thing as a building made to contain people and office equipment. Oh and of cause. Motion with a big weight can make steel collapse.

I disagree fully with the text all I'm saying is that it's no proof that WTC could collapse like that.

Why are we building with steel if it was such a fragile material that wind could take it down no problem regardless of circumstances?

Oh my fucking god not this thread again.

Here truthers, explain this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htPDDryXHIw

How in god's name can a fire alone cause a fucking CONCRETE AND STEEL BRIDGE to collapse?

Check and mate you goddamn fucking pieces of inhuman shit.

Are there really so few people that care about being rational? Who actually care about not deceiving themselves?

http://www.overcomingbias.com/
http://lesswrong.com/
http://youarenotsosmart.com/

>>3711411
What I would do is open it and check the comments. Or open it and use a text editor.
That's a start.

I have no idea what he's doing or hiding though. Just feel that if he's trying to hide it and still posting it it's not some thing amazing. It's simply his opinion or something he's posting to feel cool.

Maybe.

>conspiracy thread
>+295 posts
why must you do this

>>3711429
Uh, I already opened it in notepad, that's how I know it's got some sort of scripting language tagged onto the end. I'm not such a dolt that I'm going to attempt to run it to find out, though.

occams razor


whats more likely a grandiose comspiracy involving thousands within our government to destroy the financial heart of new york. using this as an excuse to invade the middle east.

OOOORRR.. some islamic religious nuts? i think the last ten years has proven pretty graciously that extreme followers of islam are quite capable of putting whatever sick shit that pops in their heads to action.

kiddies here also forget that before 9/11 hijacking an airplane was much easier. i remember seeing the pilots fly with the cockpit door opened. i remember being taken up to the cockpit in mid flight when i was 7.

but no its impossible for 19 rejects to do what they did. it has to be a bigger story, it has to be a greater sequence of events. it scares the human mind to realise its very simple to kill a lot of people. you just have to want to do it.

>>3711436
I checked it too. Nothing in the text editor as far as i can see.

Maybe it's just horriblye compressed
Describing what should be in 1 pixel several times or something.

Could you give us a hint poster?

>>3711435
Perverse fascination. Like rubbernecking at the scene of a massive car crash.

>>3711429
Oh. It's a .pdf file.

>>3711439
Well this isn't about who did it for me. It's how it happen. Terrorists could have smuggled in explosives. No problem. Especially when they had the resources the bin laden family had.

But if it's terrorists I'm surprised they didn't just build missiles and send them over.

It's the planecrash that's the problem. Why use such a moronic method.

>>3711429
It's a .pdf file about Flight 93 on 9/11. More consipracy theorist stuff.

>>3711449
Oh, cool. Il check it.

Ok it's BS as I suspected.

Cool how he added on that PNG segment. Might use that. (Smart way to store porn on public computers)

>>3711387
>Pisa tower theory is quite insane as it leans because it was built on marshland.
>>3711394
Did you get your degree in civil engineering from Looney Tunes University? Because this is flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry but I should have clarified that it wouldn't have started to bend from the ground up. The analogy is a bit flawed perhaps a better analogy would have been that the tower should have toppled over like a tree that has been axed on once side.

If you look at the diagrams in this thread the damage from the 2nd plane I believe was done on only one side of the building where both the inner and outer steel beams were heavily damaged. This means that on a couple of floors the support structure was severely weakened on one side while almost completely intact on the other. So, if all those fairytales of weakening steel were true then the MISSING STEEL on one corner coupled with the weakened steel theory should have slowly caused the top of the building to keel over and topple to the side while the bottom portion of the tower remained intact.

>>3711461
pervert.
you make me sick, when the tea party comes to power you'll be the first to go.

Picture related: Dat shit was cut. If you don't think so its because your a brainwashed tard. Please kill self and children. We don't need more of you breeding.

>>3711452
>Terrorists could have smuggled in explosives. No problem. Especially when they had the resources the bin laden family had.
what

>>3711452
>It's the planecrash that's the problem. Why use such a moronic method.

This. Although I'm not sure anon implied it I personally feel the /sci/ence behind a plane nicking the corner of a 110 story building, setting off random explosions from floors 110 down to the basement, disabling the sprinkler system and then within 45 minutes of impact suddenly and simultaneously pulverizing 110 floors of steel and concrete about 80 of which were untouched by heat is well, lets say debatable to say the least.

>>3711461
It's called steganography.

>>3711482
It *was* cut. During cleanup after the collapse.

>>3711462
> the tower should have toppled over like a tree that has been axed on once side.
You continue to prove my point.

>>3711482
>>3711494

This is the kind of stuff that disinfo agents try to slip into threads, blogs, podcasts and youtube etc. It's also the kind of stuff that these debunking sites are full of to make troofers look like dishonest nutjobs clutching at straws.

>>3711423
Worst part is that I feel that both sides do it.

I mean most people who well, oppose conspiracy theorists don't consider their arguments I suppose. The buildings DID fall remarkably fast.

And for future engineering it would be interesting to know as to why.

And I personally have yet heard anyone explain it better than the conspiracy theorists surprisingly. Most others I hear just say "oh well it falls that quickly so what" pretty much.

And the worst part about this is I can't even say I felt they fell too fast without getting shit thrown at me.
>>3711403
Like there. I point out that this wasn't a welded structure. Which is true. I'm pretty sure everyone can see that I'm trying to say that that's not comparable to WTC.

But he just calls me a conspiracy theorists for not agreeing with the comparison he's trying to make.

>>3711505

Simlply agreeing here.

The towers falling over like that isn't really imaginable.. I mean I would take a video game simulation of a tower falling rather than that.

>>3711494

Besides that picture, and ones similar were taken directly after? Unless someone ran in there with thermite to do it while the building collapsed. But I find that unlikely.

Oh yeah, this is an argument crusher. Why was thermite remains found in the rubble? Its not like its something that'd be in the building from the start.

>>3711515
The truthers dont need disinformation agents to make them look insane, they can do that perfectly fine on there own.

>>3711517

>The buildings DID fall remarkably fast.

compared to what? when else have you seen a 1368 ft building collapse? ever? so to say it fell remarkably fast implies a comparative event. which there is not.

>>3711505

No I don't. The point I originally made was that the "fact" that the towers collapsed into rubble in their own footprint is 10 times more ludicrous than the towers leaning over at the points of impact. So my point is IF they were weakened enough at one point on ONE SIDE then that's no reason for them to fall down vertically. Gravity should make the top keel over and topple rather than "pancake" it's way down through thousands of tons of steel and concrete like a knife through butter.

Of course the most logical outcome(without planted explosives) is that the fire smoulders out and the building remains standing. Reinforcements to the trashed metal beams could be applied in a matter of hours to stabilize the structure. Then the damage could have been repaired by a construction crew over a couple of months.

>>3711515

Nope, just tired of explaining it over an over. Either they'll accept the view or go "baaaahh!!" an get corralled into a train to be shipped to the slaughter house.

>>3711522


>Why was thermite remains found in the rubble? Its not like its something that'd be in the building from the start.

thermite is metal powder plus an oxidizer. a building collapses pulverizing everything (concrete, steel, aluminum.) some idiot derps along and finds metall powder. "aha! thermite!

>>3711533

Not who you were talking to but it doesn't imply a comparative event necessarily. You have to account for dozens of factors including the resistance put up by the floors below mostly through the tensile strenght of the steel colums.

Now speaking of comparative events there is not building in history that has magically collapsed into it's own footprint at 120% freefall speed without the use of explosives. So the burden of proof is actually on you to provide a comparitive event.

>>3711533
Compared to science.

Drop an egg to the ground from 1m's hight (partly because you're doing an experiment partly because I want your floor dirty for even asking).
Take the time.
Calculate the speed and figure out Earths gravitational pull.

Now. Do the same with WTC. Take the time it took to fall. Height of it.

And then see how fast it fell.

Does it feel right that falling through a massive amount of steel would slow it down ~3 seconds. And for it to fall similarly to how the egg fell except slightly slower. By this I mean that it's s/t graph shows a similar exponential curve to that of the egg. Except it ends at a point further down the timeline.

Because that's how stuff falls.

I'm being rational here but you can't disagree with gravity. That's not reasonable.

>>3711544

I don't think they let idiots do that kind of work. Also, here is my source. I don't think their idiots.

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/physicist-steven-jones-nanothermite-in-911-wtc-dust-
samples-scientific-analysis-controlled-demolition/

>>3711538
Yes while I agree about it falling in it's footprint being extremely strange falling over like you described it is just crazy.

When I first saw it happen on 9/11 i was expecting it to burn some and possibly slide off, if not slide off it would burn and spread the fire downwards and perhaps then collapse. But not simply fall all of a sudden. I was seriously checking the calender when that happened.

I was watching Swedish TV so it wouldn't have been as extreme of an april 1st joke.

>>3711563
but it didn't completely fall into it footprint, at first the floors start falling on top of each other, as get close to grown it starts falling outwards.

>>3711550

>Does it feel right that falling through a massive amount of steel would slow it down ~3 seconds.
No.

>And for it to fall similarly to how the egg fell except slightly slower.
You're actually measuring the rate of fall of the steeple and ignoring the speed of dall of various other points in the tower. I would love to see an analysis of various floors on the WTC and how fast they supposedly fell but unfortunately there's that massive cloud that covers up most of the collapse of the lower floors.
>By this I mean that it's s/t graph shows a similar exponential curve to that of the egg. Except it ends at a point further down the timeline.

BTW not sure if you're trolling or which side you're promoting tbh but an egg dropping through air is very different than an egg dropping through 109 other eggs. If you managed to pile 110 eggs on top of each other and somehow superglued them together and stabilized the structure and then took one egg and tossed it on egg 109 you might end up cracking two or three eggs but eventually the eggs would just absorb the impact.

Now if you took 10 eggs off the top, lifted them a foot high and dropped them on the 90 other eggs you might smash 5 to 10 of the upper eggs this time but most of the shock would be absorbed by then and the rest of the eggs would remain OK.

This is just to purely illustrate the effect of gravity and momentum btw. Eggs are fucking weaker than steel and concrete lawl I'm saying this because someone is bound to pick on this post.

Pic related. Real cause.

>>3711553
Well if what he says is correct (guy you're responding to).

Then it may very well have been a mistake.

For scary engineering stories. My mother was on a visit in a US coal plant.

Their monitoring computer suddenly froze ~1am every morning without any explanation as to why (first time i ever happend).

So she was sent over to check it. When she arrived she found no real error with the machine so she basicly had to sit there and see what happend at.

They were working shifts and this was 20 minutes after a guy came onto his shift.

He complained that it was frozen after a while. While mom saw no problem with it other than it being slow since he had many copies of the windows open and just pressed the X at top of a window.

This man had never used a windows system. He was used to one of these OS'es that closed/put any window in standby when you open something new.

Yeah, people can be stupid. This termite thing can be a similar mistake. Except that would just not be him not doing his job properly.

Btw that guy didn't get fired. We had a long discussion at home about it and came to the conclusion that he shouldn't be fired. After getting to know how to handle windows properly he would be fine.

>>3711606

In your case it was work incompetence. He just didn't know the tools he was working with. As for finding thermite, many researchers from many countries confirm it. But if people expect me to dig up a citation from every country to prove a point then they aren't going to do anything about it anyhow.

what really happend

>>3711600
> which side you're promoting
WHAT?!
Are you insane?
Why would I promote a side? I just gave a small explanation of a physics experiment to figure out how strong the gravitational pull is on earth.

I was just being silly and saying things everyone should know. I assumed you would just disregard it and say something like "oh I see where you're coming from with this" and then present other points you had or something..

Why would this argue for either side? You were arguing that I had nothing to compare to.

Of cause I have to defend that for the side of the conspiracy theorists I suppose. But unless you have discussed the entire topic you have NO right to make up your mind.

Just like people who do not know alot of politics shouldn't be able to vote. I think we all agree on this.

If you don't have the full picture or enough to make any additional counterargument irrelevant (within realistic boundaries. If I was arguing for raising the tax and there was proof of that hurting an alien race in a galaxy far far away of cause i still get to support raising the tax.) you shouldn't speak for either side.

This is the basics of arguing.
I'm not a regular /sci/ visitor but how do not know this is so strange to me.

You pick your side when you have all the facts available presented. If additional facts are presented you may change your opinion. But clearly if we're having this very basic discussion I can't pick either side.

or this?

>>3711492

Did nobody ID the program in this?

there just hiding.
that why they won't build where they are.

I can see them, can't you?

>>3711628
Wasn't really what I'm asking for. But like this.

This 4chan anon posted that you should expect finding those things at the site regardless of if there's termite or not. If he's right. The researchers are incompetent.

You then presented your source as some kind of proof as to them not being incompetent.

But you didn't say he was wrong. You simply said that you trust some people enough to believe them.

Which put me into the position where I felt I had to reply saying that regardless of who you're working for and what position you're in. You can still be wrong on fundamentals.

And the remains could easily be mistaken for termite. Assuming anon was right.

No I don't believe anon was right until he provides a source. Or I find one.

Sometimes it feels people go with the wrong approach to arguments.

We're not in a political debate infront of an audience.

Act accordingly.

>>3711642
Um not in here. Why would you need one? Having one of these makes it pretty damn obvious how to do it.

>>3711652
>termites?

>>3711660
Yes? Those are he ones that eat metal right?
I'm sure you figured out that I'm simply horrible at spelling. That's dyslexia for you.

>>3711652

Act accordingly? This is 4chan so..I guess I should post my picture of a tub full of brains. (Pic related)

We are in front of an audience, they are called the public. Most of them are dumb. Though really, I agree no one should trust just one source. Feel free to look up others. I provided one, but thats all yah get for free. An yeah. I didn't say he was wrong. Tired of flame waring people who feel they have a point, yet can't back it up. I just put the evidence down an say 'any questions?'

>>3711675
The problem wasn't your source. It was that you didn't complain about his statement.

That's my previous post in short.

What I meant by act accordingly is that people act as if they need to win something here. Not simply get it right.

"Winning" (convincing people outside the discussion) here is not useful at all. It has no effect.

>>3711652

I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of taking sides. I am taking the side of the tinfoilers simply because I see other people using dirty tricks, crowd /psy/chology and other tactics to shape opinions and marginalize all the legitimate /sci/entific arguments against the official story. It's as simple as that.

>>3711657

The md5 14187196C09D38ED71B919DBE14F08E5 identifies it without any risky running of it - AutoHotkey104706

>>3711599

According to the pancake theory the trusses with all the weight of the furniture and equipment on them were the main catalyst of this alleged chain reaction. Many problems with that theory and one of them is that the force exerted by the weight of multiple office floors is strong enough to vertically crush 110 storeys of the skyscraper almost consistently into it's own footprint for the most part.

That sounds so dicrous. Vertical steel beams *if* and when put up against a force that is strong enough to demolish them by downward pressure should not crumble like toast floor by floor but rather should warp and thus shift the force of the momentum away from the center of the building. We never saw that happen and we know the lower floors were as strong as anything so the steel beams, at least the vertically placed steel beams, should not have behaved the way that they did.