September 11, 2001

File: 106 KB, 1600x900, 2001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

September 11, 2001 Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:16:23 2019 No.11264173 [Reply] [Original]

I'm not a /sci/entist. Please explain to me, how the Twin Towers collapsed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:18:32 2019 No.11264175 planes hit them fires erupted steel weakened

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:18:44 2019 No.11264176 >>11264173 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:23:12 2019 No.11264180 >>11264173 I’m not an expert, but it looks like the massive fucking plane with a full load of fuel crashing into it might have done the job

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:28:36 2019 No.11264189 gravity

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:29:09 2019 No.11264191 >>11264173 As soon as the first floor collapsed, the accumulated weight falling onto each subsequent floor got greater and greater. That way it makes sense to me.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:30:21 2019 No.11264193

>>11264173
>"no conclusive evidence was found to indicare that pre-collapse fires were servere enough to have significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" - NIST NCSTAR 1 - 3c p. 235

>>11264180
>https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:31:50 2019 No.11264195 >>11264193 >The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. Gee, I guess sometimes designs fail.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:35:30 2019 No.11264201

>>11264191
The lower part of the tower was built to hold the weight of the upper part. In addition, when the upper part collapsed onto the lower part, it would have to be expected that the collapsing upper part destroyed an equal part of the larger, lower lower part. That would've been in accordance with the Third Law of Newton's laws of motion. That the upper part destroyed the entire lower part, makes no sense to me, because of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:37:31 2019 No.11264203 They were detonated to stop the fires from spreading. Holy shit, you people are stupid as fuck. Look up the interviews with the property manager that owned the twin towers, Larry Silverstein. He literally says they detonated the support beams.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:40:34 2019 No.11264211 >>11264193 >The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. Pretty terrible design

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:51:47 2019 No.11264228 >>11264195 >>11264211 With such a devastating design flaw, one might think that consequential measures were taken. Yet, I don't know of any architectural consequences, that ensued the WTC collapses. Do you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:54:28 2019 No.11264233 >>11264228 Is English your third or fourth language?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 09:56:54 2019 No.11264237 >>11264193 designed to withstand a DC-10, the most common commercial plane at the time the building was designed and not a fully loaded with fuel for international flight 767 jumbo jet

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:00:27 2019 No.11264244 >>11264228 I have read this about 5 times and have absolutely no clue what you're saying

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:03:38 2019 No.11264245 >>11264201 Yeah, built to hold it in a specific way with the various support columns and beams that would exist to help hold it up. Buildings don't just stand freely with no support other than what is just beneath that floor. They're structured.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:04:11 2019 No.11264249 The cabal wanted to expand their police state and secure better water access for israel with the Iraq water pipeline plan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:04:40 2019 No.11264250 >>>>hhttps//:4channel.org/x/catalog

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:06:09 2019 No.11264251 How the twin towers collapsed isn't as interesting as how building 7 fell into its own footprint even though no plane hit it and it only suffered minor fires for a short pwriod of time before collapsing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:07:42 2019 No.11264253 Arabs are really bad at piloting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:08:18 2019 No.11264255 >>11264228 What the fuck are you saying?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:15:29 2019 No.11264267 >>11264173 I don't know, but if you had been one of the highjackers, the last words you would have heard were RETARD RETARD RETARD

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:20:35 2019 No.11264275

>>11264237
>https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
It was built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which is similiar to the Boeing 767, that was used on 9/11. The calculated impact of a Boeing 707 would have been even more destructive than the impact that occurred in 2001. Even though it's true that Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer, claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis.

>>11264244
The design flaw was so significant that I woud've expected a (huge) lawsuit. However, that did not happen, afaik.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:24:21 2019 No.11264279 >>11264275 A building from the 1960s not being able to withstand a 767 tearing it at 150 mph is not a design flaw.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:25:44 2019 No.11264283 >>11264245 That's correct, but now read the part after "in addition". That entire building would'nt have upheld its structrual integrity, but the the lower part should have.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:34:35 2019 No.11264293

>>11264279
Read, here:
>https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph. The planes used, both a Boeing 767, travelled at 470 mph (AA 11) and at 590 mph (AA 175). The kinetic energy released in the terror attacks was in both cases within 10% of the calculated impact of a Boeing 707 (in the case of AA 11 it was even below).

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:38:27 2019 No.11264301 >>11264293 >https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes >not a single source >just "well testimony confirms it lol"

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:39:43 2019 No.11264305

>>11264228
don't worry anon i think i understood this.

>With such a devastating design flaw one might think that, consequentially, measures would be taken. Yet I don't know of any relevant consequences that followed the WTC collapse. Do you?
I'm sure lessons were learned by some in the modern architecture world. As for the supposedly incompetent architect who designed the WTC, well, he disappeared on 9/11 IIRC. Just vanished into thin air. Case closed, nothing to see here haha. There is a video of him talking about the design though and how the WTC could not be brought down by even multiple plane crashes, because the support structure is based on central vertical steel supports or something. He seemed pretty sure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:41:33 2019 No.11264312 >>11264301 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Skilling#cite_note-ST-4 >Nalder, Eric (1993-02-27). "Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2009-02-18

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:46:35 2019 No.11264323 >>11264173 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q > they put burning jet fuel under a steel I-beam > it collapses

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:46:44 2019 No.11264324 >>11264173 Government inside job. Too many correlations to not be true. Science has spoken.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:48:53 2019 No.11264328 >>11264180 jet fuel can't melt steel beams anon it's not just a meme that fuel would've burned up instantly

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:50:48 2019 No.11264332 >>11264324 you don't need to be a scientist to know WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:51:03 2019 No.11264333 >>11264328 Nowadays the official version states that the fire did not melt, but weaken the steel enough to collapse the buildings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:56:00 2019 No.11264339 >>11264332 Yep. It can easily be deduced through common sense and visual confirmation. Science has spoken.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:56:03 2019 No.11264340 >>11264333 the official version never said steel was melted. this has always been a dumb strawman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:57:03 2019 No.11264343 >>11264173 They installed b.o.m.b.s on every level in the 3 skyscrapers. One hour after the airplanes hit the skyscrapers they pressed the detonator, and the 3 skyscrapers exploded.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 10:58:04 2019 No.11264347

>>11264333
does the official version mention wtc7?
or the fact that the terrorists somehow picked the single, tiny window of opportunity in which they wouldn't be immediately intercepted and shot down by the USAF?
never before or since has the USAF been so preoccupied by training exercises that not a single aircraft was available to defend US air space
the training exercises were based on a scenario involving hijacked aircraft heading for major cities btw haha small world innit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:00:05 2019 No.11264350 >>11264343 Body Odour Man Bull Shit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:01:11 2019 No.11264351 >>11264173 Three planes hit three skyscarpers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) Simple.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:03:30 2019 No.11264354

>>11264340
The pancake theory was first advanced by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with the assistance of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), in September 2002. That theory was later abandoned when the investigation was handed over to NIST.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:04:32 2019 No.11264355 >>11264354 >The pancake theory has nothing to do with steel melting

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:05:07 2019 No.11264356 >>11264173 Plane hit the building. Building falsely claimed withstand plane crash. Bin laden watch kobe bryant hit 46 pts. Building collapse. End of the story.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:06:32 2019 No.11264360

>>11264347
>does the official version mention wtc7?
Yes, the NIST report explains the collapse of WTC 7. According to this report, it was caused by the debris of WTC 1 and 2 and the ensuing fires, afaik.

>or the fact that the terrorists somehow picked the single, tiny window of opportunity in which they wouldn't be immediately intercepted and shot down by the USAF?
No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:13:56 2019 No.11264377 >>11264355 It does, because it proposed that the horizontal steel beams molt and collapsed onto each other. That was believed to have caused the failure of the entire structure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:14:28 2019 No.11264379 File: 321 KB, 782x788, 1371881012492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11264360 >it was caused by the debris of WTC 1 and 2 and the ensuing fires i hope you don't believe that anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:15:04 2019 No.11264382 >>11264356 It withstood the plane crash, it didn't withstand the fires resulting from the plane crash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:16:07 2019 No.11264387 >>11264379 Personally, I don't know. Right now, I'm neither in favor of the official version, nor the demolition theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:20:14 2019 No.11264395 >>11264377 >because it proposed that the horizontal steel beams molt and collapsed onto each other it literally doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:20:15 2019 No.11264396 >>11264293 You are IGNORING THE JET FUEL. Holy flying fucking shit. This is why I specifically said >fully loaded with fuel You fucking moron.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:21:19 2019 No.11264400

>>11264379

Plausible to me. Think about how many tonnes of rubble could have been on that roof. Then add the seismic disturbance and even the possibility of shitty concrete. I don't care what any architect claims, nobody is building civilian shit to deal with that kind of situation.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:24:37 2019 No.11264411

>>11264193
>no conclusive evidence
the evidence is right there, they collapsed
>the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner
and they did
if it wasn't for the fire, they would've survived

>>11264201
wide open floors and columns only on the perimeter and in the center, is not gonna stop a titanic pile of rubble in motion
with a scenario like that, the floors are fucked no matter what
the perimeter columns need the floors, so they're fucked too
the core can survive for a bit but it can't stand on its own, so eventually it's fucked too

let's see how the collapse actually went:
floors caved in one by one all the way down
perimeter columns peeled off a few seconds behind, hmm checks out
the core stood by itself for so long you could see it as the dust cloud started to clear, and then it collapsed.
yeah that's about right

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:28:01 2019 No.11264419

>>11264379
>it was caused by x, y and z
>here are scientific papers describing it in detail
>random anon: nah smugface.jpg
nice counterargument, retard!
you're supposed to know the opposing side's argument before you post your own, in order to not look like a fucking fool

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:30:08 2019 No.11264423 >>11264387 What alternatives are there?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:31:15 2019 No.11264425 >>11264382 What did a plane when it crashes ? It burns in 100% of the case. So they were lying in the first place with their analysis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:35:13 2019 No.11264432 >>11264400 >>11264419 >a perfectly symmetrical collapse at free fall speed was caused by these factors which can in no way physically cause such a collapse by themselves hurr retard why don't you just believe it fucking fool someone even did a paper

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:35:49 2019 No.11264433

>>11264395
I'm speaking of the "pancake theory" that was proposed by the FEMA, not the now official NIST report. Please specify what's wrong about my description and provide sources.

>>11264396
I did incorporate the fuel in my post. See, here: >>11264275
>Even though it's true that Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer, claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis.
Because of this imprecision, I believe it to be the best to treat the impact and the fires, resulting from the impact as two events. I did address the jet-fuel-issue, here: >>11264193
>>"no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were servere enough to have significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in the weakening of the steel structure" - NIST NCSTAR 1 - 3c p. 235

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:39:47 2019 No.11264436 >>11264433 >Please specify what's wrong about my description Nowhere in the NIST report is it specified that steel beams melted.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:40:02 2019 No.11264437

>>11264382
the world trade centre burned for hours and hours over 6 floors back in the 70s

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/archives/trade-center-hit-by-6floor-fire-blaze-starts-on-the-11th-16-men-are.html

at the time nobody even suggested that it might collapse as a result, because modern buildings based on a steel structure tend not to collapse due to fire, because the melting point of steel is around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:43:31 2019 No.11264442

>>11264437
>the world trade centre burned for hours and hours over 6 floors back in the 70s
At lower fucking temperature
>because the melting point of steel is around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)
Steel doesn't need to fucking MELT to turn into a limp noodle you fucking brainlet.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:48:04 2019 No.11264444

>>11264411
>they collapsed
That's not an evidence for a theory that NIST proposed.

>wide open floors and columns only on the perimeter and in the center, is not gonna stop a titanic pile of rubble in motion
No, it would. Because the force of motion would have met an equal force of resistance. This principle is the Third Law of Newton's laws of motion. According to it, an equal number of floors both from the upper and from lower part should have been destroyed.

>the core stood by itself for so long you could see it as the dust cloud started to clear
The core (signalized by the antenna) collapsed slightly before the rest, as you can see, here:
>https://youtu.be/mPFOLpZiEnQ (sec 0:18)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:49:27 2019 No.11264446 >>11264444 >Because the force of motion would have met an equal force of resistance. This principle is the Third Law of Newton's laws of motion confirmed for not understanding newton's laws

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:50:15 2019 No.11264447 >>11264423 I don't prescribe to any theory, as for now. I'm just asking questions, that appear to be unanswered to me. >>11264425 Yeah, it's strange, they didn't factor this in.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:51:04 2019 No.11264448

>>11264432
read the papers before replying
these are all incorrect statements
>a perfectly symmetrical collapse
nope
>at free fall speed
nope
>was caused by these factors
yep
>which can in no way physically cause such a collapse by themselves
how so? show your work
>someone even did a paper
you have a phobia against peer reviewed scientific papers?
that's a big red flag, are you a crank by any chance?
obviously being a peer reviewed scientific paper doesn't mean it's true, it just means it's a damn good attempt at getting to the truth, perhaps the best you can find in the world, and has the highest probability of being true, highly recommended to read before you start arguing

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:51:12 2019 No.11264449

>>11264442
how long do you think it took for the jet fuel to burn up?
it wasn't applied to the fire over an extended period of time, it was sprayed all over the place whilst on fire
it probably burned up in less than a second
yes it was probably extremely hot for that half a second, but to weaken the steel to the point of failure it would've had to subject the steel to those temperatures over some time, otherwise it could only affect the surface of the steel beams (if it even reached the steel beams through the other materials), not the core

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:58:27 2019 No.11264457 File: 440 KB, 1511x1171, 3bodies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Will you be able to? Axis ticks are astronomical units. Mass ratio blue/red/yellow: 3/4/5.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:58:59 2019 No.11264458 Why is nobody talking about building 7?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:01:01 2019 No.11264463
File: 3.39 MB, 595x481, 15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264444
>According to it, an equal number of floors both from the upper and from lower part should have been destroyed.
nope
process of induction focusing only on a single floor:

can a single floor support a huge pile of rubble moving down fast? no
can a single floor support a huge pile of rubble moving down slowly? no
can a single floor support a huge pile of rubble not moving at all? possible

let's assume a floor failed, what happens to the next floor?

did the rubble's momentum slow down a little bit? next floor is getting crushed too
did the rubble's momentum slow down significantly? next floor is getting crushed too, because slow speed is still enough, also it's heavier now, having acquired a new floor worth of mass, so speed requirements are even lower now

did the rubble completely grind to a halt? the distance to the next floor is enough to accelerate it to a speed where it can continue crushing

in conclusion, it's unstoppable
even in the extreme case that crushing a floor will completely stop the rubble, the distance to the next floor is enough to accelerate it to a crushing speed again
and that's the extreme case, the actual case is that it only slowed the rubble's momentum by a little bit

the towers were fucked even in the best case scenario

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:02:52 2019 No.11264468

>>11264436
I was talking about the proposition made by the FEMA (their "pancake theory"), not NIST's conclusions.

>>11264442
"Popular mechanics" proposes that steel of the WTC would have lost half of their strength at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit (593.3 Celsius). However, NIST did not find evidence for temperature above 450 degrees Fahrenheit (250 Celsius), with the exception of three isolated spots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:03:55 2019 No.11264470 >>11264446 Explain, what I got wrong.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:04:16 2019 No.11264471
File: 3.90 MB, 400x290, FarSereneHornedtoad-size_restricted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264448
in order to bring down a building of that size, of that design, at that speed, collapsing with that level of symmetry, all of the support beams have to fail simultaneously
do i have to explain why that is?
and all of the support beams won't fail simultaneously due to fire and the impact of debris because they are made out steel, which is unaffected by conventional fires
unless you believe this debris hit all of the support beams in such a way that they all then failed simultaneously, several hours later
of course magical peer reviewed papers have proven the official story and anyone doubting them is insane
but the art of deduction is to rule out the impossible and examine what is left
the official story, no matter how many papers insist that it's possible, is not in fact possible

also:
>>at free fall speed
>nope
yet
>NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 fell at a rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to slow down

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:09:44 2019 No.11264477 >>11264463 what happened to the vertical support beams running through the centre of the building? they weren't subjected to these floors falling on them but they weren't there after the collapse

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:11:39 2019 No.11264481
File: 2.47 MB, 360x288, ezgif-2-440650306cbf.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264471
>they are made out steel, which is unaffected by conventional fires
uhh steel is the one that's susceptible to fire, did you mean concrete?
concrete works well against fire
steel weakens significantly, which is the root cause for why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed
not a surprise to find out weakened steel was the cause behind WTC 7, makes sense
all 3 buildings relied heavily upon their steel

also don't cherry pick angles
other angles show it toppling and buckling
and in your gif you forgot to include the part before, where the interior collapses
you only show the empty exterior shell collapsing, it's much easier for that to reach free fall speed
and it only fell at that speed for a couple seconds before slowing down

yeah nothing seems off about this

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:14:51 2019 No.11264487
File: 1.44 MB, 240x196, 965734348.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264477
>but they weren't there after the collapse
yes they were
on their own and with the massive pile of rubble damaging them on the way down before crushing them in from the sides as the rubble hits the ground at high speed
needless to say they didn't last long
you can see the cores still standing in both WTC 1 and 2 for some seconds after the main collapse finishes, before they also start to fall
image related

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:15:49 2019 No.11264490 >>11264463 It wasn't a single floor, but the entire builing that executed a resisting force. Please do a calculation or provide a source that calculates this process.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:17:20 2019 No.11264493 schizo threads always bump fast and disappear off the front page fast. feels good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:18:22 2019 No.11264496 >>11264481 in 1975 the north tower burned all day and night over 6 floors why did nobody even consider that it might collapse if steel loses its structural integrity due to burning office supplies and furniture?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:20:24 2019 No.11264497

>>11264490
what is right below the advancing rubble?
a floor
does it matter that there are 100 more floors below that floor?
when a person splits a plank in half with his hand, does it matter that there's 12,000 km of rock below him to support that plank? nope, only the plank itself matters, whether it breaks or not letting the hand advance further down, is all down to the plank itself and what it can handle, not the rock below

what matters for the collapse is:
how much can the floor handle?
how much will the rubble accelerate before it reaches the next floor?
even in the most extreme of cases, the rubble will still break the first floor and accelerate enough to break the second one too

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:24:13 2019 No.11264504
File: 37 KB, 280x250, 1975fire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264496
because it wasn't hit by a huge fully fueled plane traveling extremely fast
and that fire wasn't anywhere near the scale of the 2001 fire
it also happened on the 11th floor so it didn't take fucking hours to reach the top with exhausted fucking firefighters having to navigate through rubble in a caved in fucking skyscraper in the middle of a massive fucking panic
only to reach absolute destruction and a multi-floor fire engulfing the whole bulding, the worst and most extensive fire ever experienced in the history of skyscrapers

god you fucking cranks

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:26:17 2019 No.11264509 >>11264504 oh and i forgot to mention, by the time the firefighters reached the huge fire, the building was already seconds from collapse, so nothing they could do

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:27:48 2019 No.11264513 >>11264481 >steel is the one that's susceptible to fire hence nobody makes engines or ovens or frying pans or barbecue grills or other fire resisting things using steel it would just melt innit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:30:05 2019 No.11264518 >>11264504 >it wasn't hit by a huge fully fueled plane traveling extremely fast neither was wtc7, which is the one we're talking about are you being deliberately obtuse now?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:31:48 2019 No.11264522

>>11264513
melt? nobody talked about melting
a frying pan isn't long enough that you can notice the bending, it's a larger scale phenomenon
same with ovens and grills and engines

i can't snap a branch shorter than the length of my fingernail
hard to get your fingers in there to snap it and it's so thick too
gee i guess all branches are indestructible then, according to your logic!
can't weaken a frying pan? i guess huge steel beams carrying 100,000 times the load of a fucking pan, can't weaken either!

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:33:06 2019 No.11264527

>>11264518
huh?
>in 1975 the north tower burned all day and night over 6 floors
you're talking about the north tower here
>why did nobody even consider that it might collapse if steel loses its structural integrity due to burning office supplies and furniture?
by "it" i'm guessing you mean the north tower you just referred to right before?

i don't see any wtc 7 in there

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:33:32 2019 No.11264528 File: 72 KB, 1280x720, the WHOLE building.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11264504 >fire engulfing the whole bulding do you think we're actually blind?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:33:53 2019 No.11264530 >>11264497 That's a plausible explanation. But please do provide a calculation of that process.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:34:45 2019 No.11264533 >>11264528 apologies! i meant everything above the point of impact, including 1-2 floors below

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:37:00 2019 No.11264539
File: 165 KB, 1200x1600, GJS-WTC25.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264528
also that's an earlier image, post one before collapse to see the full extent and severity of the fire

image related, seconds before collapse
notice the buckling on the right face of the north tower in this image, if you got good eyes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:38:05 2019 No.11264540 >>11264530 NIST already did that in their papers highly recommend checking them out

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:40:12 2019 No.11264543

>>11264527
jesus fucking christ here we go again explaining utterly basic shit on 4chan FUCK ME

to try and make our conversation simple enough for you to understand:
we were discussing what caused wtc7's steel structure to collapse
you said it was fire
i said the north tower of the wtc (also a steel structure) didn't collapse when it was on fire
you said that's because it hadn't been hit by a plane
i said wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane
and you said whoa which tower are we talking about here?? this conversation is confusing now!

does a steel structure collapse due to fire if it hasn't been hit by a plane?
yes or no

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:41:27 2019 No.11264546 >>11264539 >posts a picture zoomed in on the bit that was on fire >"see? the whole building was on fire!" wow

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:49:02 2019 No.11264559

>>11264522
so why make pressure cookers out of steel if steel can't handle a combination of high temperature and high pressure?
like i said to the other guy, wtc's north tower was on fire across 6 floors for a day in 1975
why didn't steel fail on that occasion, but it did in the case of wtc7 (with all beams failing simultaneously) after just a couple of hours on fire in 2001?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:49:35 2019 No.11264560

>>11264540
>“The structure below the level of collapse initiation provided minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.
>“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down
essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” — p. 146, NIST NCSTAR 1
The NIST report does not provide a calculation for the collapse after the "Collapse Initiation", unfortunately (Though, the independent researchers Dr. Zdeněk Bažant and Jia-Liang Le published a paper in 2011, titled "Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth"). To conclude, instead of
>"According to it, an equal number of floors both from the upper and from lower part should have been destroyed."
I now argue, that if your theory were valid, there should've been a declaration of the collapse. However that was not observed.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:49:53 2019 No.11264562

>>11264543
>you said that's because it hadn't been hit by a plane
you forgot to mention how the scale of the fire was completely different and impossible to deal with
conveniently left out that part of my reply, eh?

>does a steel structure collapse due to fire if it hasn't been hit by a plane?
yes if the fire is extensive enough
i'd say 7 hours of uncontrolled burning, qualifies for extensive enough, that's beyond what any firefighter will ever deal with in their lives

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:51:42 2019 No.11264566 >>11264546 no idiot "also" look one post above "apologies! it was everything above and 1-2 floors below the impact zone" can you not read? and you still posted an earlier image, not showing the true extent so you're still wrong

Braun Mon Dec 30 12:54:14 2019 No.11264572

>>11264173

All corpses (bodies with mass) are subjected to a force, called gravity. Each body attracts and is attracted to other bodies. The strength of the attraction is positively correlated with the mass of the bodies (the more massive a body is, the stronger the attraction is).
[eqn]F_G = G \frac{M_1 M_2}{r^2}[/eqn]
With nothing strong enough to oppose this attraction, the two towers fell towards the earth (and the earth towards the towers).

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:54:39 2019 No.11264575

There is the question of what actually caused them to collapse but whether or not it was the planes there is the question of how they managed to successfully attack us. Clearly there were at least a few people who knew and let it happen. I'm not a conspiracy theorist per se so idk all the details but as another anon mentioned the fighter jet drills were a pretty big fuckin coincidence and the FBI had a pretty good idea but the white house did nothing.

Whether or not it was a demolition doesn't prove whether or not it was an inside job. There is a chance it was classic American stupidity. The first three planes hit their targets because in the past when terrorists steal planes they don't use them as missiles. Conveniently the plane going for the white house was taken back by those on board but initially everyone on the other planes and on the ground assumed that there would be a different set of circumstances to deal with. It was a massive failing of intelligence if it really were. Personally I think it's plausible that the fourth plane was supposed to hit and the people on board fighting back was all that did not go according to plan.

I think people underestimate the craziness of the 20th century. Shit like this happened all the time and the only reason 9/11 is what it is is because the internet was exploding right at the same time. Had it been just ten years prior there would be no network for conspiracy theorists to develop their ideas.

I'd say it's at least 10:1 somebody powerful let it happen. Ronald Reagan loved Bin Laden.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:56:38 2019 No.11264578
File: 12 KB, 272x380, 1975.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264562
so whether it was hit by a plane is irrelevant now?
don't bring it up then

>the scale of the fire was completely different and impossible to deal with
the 1975 fire burned for far longer than those on 9/11
and it was far lower down in the structure
which means the temperatures involved are the same (if not greater) and the pressure on the load-bearing steel is much greater

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:57:20 2019 No.11264580 >>11264572 >With nothing strong enough to oppose this attraction Well, there was something "strong to oppose this attraction". Namely the a building of steel and concrete.

>>	Braun Mon Dec 30 12:58:21 2019 No.11264582 >>11264580 When the plane crashed into it, it became weaker.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:59:12 2019 No.11264586 planes hit them

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:00:58 2019 No.11264591

>>11264575
>The first three planes hit their targets because in the past when terrorists steal planes they don't use them as missiles
this is true but there is a policy of intercepting and shooting down hijacked planes that are heading for an urban centre
better to lose the plane than lose the plane plus whatever it hits
i suspect the shanksville crash might have been due to a successful interception and then semi-covered up to avoid having to explain that the USAF just shot down a civilian aircraft

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:01:00 2019 No.11264592 >>11264575 I think UA 93 might have been headed for WTC 7, but who knows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:02:02 2019 No.11264596 >>11264582 Not the part below the impact area.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:04:56 2019 No.11264601 >>11264586 let's read these words the fast way get ready KITE PLANE MUST HIT STEEL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5D6w0a8LM

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:07:28 2019 No.11264604 >>11264173 It was the shock-wave of the dancing israelis

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:14:56 2019 No.11264621 I'm from Europe. What do Americans think about: 1) There were explosives placed in the towers, otherwise the collapse wouldn't have been possible 2) 911 was an inside job This is a genuine question, I have no idea and I really wonder.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:42:31 2019 No.11264662 >>11264601 >when your alibi makes you look 1000x more evil than the crime

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:45:19 2019 No.11264667 >>11264173 inside job

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:49:48 2019 No.11264680 >>11264173 israeli goat milk

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 14:45:03 2019 No.11264766

>>11264591
>this is true but there is a policy of intercepting and shooting down hijacked planes that are heading for an urban centre
False.

>i suspect the shanksville crash might have been due to a successful interception and then semi-covered up to avoid having to explain that the USAF just shot down a civilian aircraft
Retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 14:51:43 2019 No.11264778 >>11264621 Only about 5% of Americans believe the government was involved.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 15:05:00 2019 No.11264800
File: 51 KB, 427x456, kino95.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It was and still is the biggest terrorist attack ever, some kind of government must have been involved with aid and planning.
If a terrorist organisation really did all that alone then why hasn't anything nearly as big happened since?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 15:05:22 2019 No.11264803 >>11264766 The area around Washington was and is a no-fly zone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 15:08:22 2019 No.11264809 File: 985 KB, 3072x2048, Twin Towers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I miss them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:04:18 2019 No.11264931 >>11264803 It was only a no fly zone after 9/11. And this doesn't even respond to anything I said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:05:53 2019 No.11264933 >>11264800 Maybe because governments are now aware of it and are preventing it, moron?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:16:31 2019 No.11264945 >>11264931 The post you responded to wasn't mine. Besides, Washington was prohibited air space and the gov't of the US could've shot AA 77 down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:38:15 2019 No.11264983 >>11264251 First and only steel building to collapse due to a paper fire!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:39:38 2019 No.11264988 >>11264195 Then, gee, I guess you have to prove that in this case, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:40:50 2019 No.11264992 >>11264411 >the evidence is right there, they collapsed Brainlet detected.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:47:15 2019 No.11265007 tl;dr of the thread? /x/ dont answer please, (but was it a inside job or) is everything perfectly logically sound?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:49:36 2019 No.11265016 File: 50 KB, 288x423, E-Team.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11264933

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:50:04 2019 No.11265017

>>11264173
I've been researching this subject since about 2003 and during that time I would repeatedly here mention of the absolutely ludicrous idea that the World Trade Centre was destroyed using nuclear bombs.
Since then I came across a video on this board by a German nuclear physicists, who convinced me that this seemingly ludicrous suggestion is actually the one that most fits the data.
I can't find that vid atm, so here is the original video of a Russian agent discussing much the same theory on yt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOfzFjLv_5s

I am always open to new ideas and thinking on this subject. If you think you can shed light on or dispell the idea that a nuke was used to detonate WTC1 and 2, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion. If you are just going to spam and say:
>DAT'S STUPID IT COUDN'T NEVER ACSHTULLY HABBEN
then fuck off

>>	jesus the devil Mon Dec 30 16:52:31 2019 No.11265020 >>11264487 can you tell me why they fell straight down and not sideways, since the lower structures did not support the break?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 16:52:52 2019 No.11265021 >>11265017 Given, your theory is true, then why didn't the find radioactive material on Ground Zero?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:03:59 2019 No.11265033

>>11264945
>The post you responded to wasn't mine
So? It still doesn't respond to anything I said.

>Besides, Washington was prohibited air space and the gov't of the US could've shot AA 77 down.
How? NORAD didn't even know flight 77 was missing until 3 minutes before it hit the Pentagon, let alone where it was or what it was going to do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:06:56 2019 No.11265039 File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265016

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:20:39 2019 No.11265066 >>11264251 You forgot the giant pieces of debris that hit it and destroyed a large part of one side of the building.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:26:40 2019 No.11265082 >>11265033 The Secret Service was aware of an incoming object (AA 77), this was stated by several witnesses in the White House (e.g. the United States Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta). >https://youtu.be/bDfdOwt2v3Y

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:48:16 2019 No.11265118 >>11265082 Incorrect, they're talking about flight 93, not flight 77. Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Norman_Mineta

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 17:57:14 2019 No.11265138 File: 9 KB, 199x253, numalenoooo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265033 t.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:06:00 2019 No.11265157
File: 2.93 MB, 3000x2400, September_17_2001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11265066
Ah yes that pesky debris causing superficial damage to one face of the tower and causing the first (1st) collapse of its kind in history.
It's too bad the debris damage wasn't minor like WTC 6 which stayed standing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:06:52 2019 No.11265161 >>11264173 >reference transition temperature of steel < jet fuel burning temperature >force exerted by mass of tower above burning > ductile failure force of soft steel >demolition charges in sub basement tower fall down

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:10:39 2019 No.11265167
File: 73 KB, 503x478, 1566339644902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264193
>the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA YA GOT ME YA GOT ME GOOD ONE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHHAHAHA NO WAY MAN NO WAY, IT WAS DESIGNED FOR SUCH A SPECIFIC REASON AND IT COULDN'T EVEN DO ITS JOB HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HOW IRONIC HAHAHAHA GOOD ONE MAN, GOOD ONE

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:13:14 2019 No.11265173 >>11264203 /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:18:10 2019 No.11265188 I have a simple question that I can never field a sufficiently satisfying answer for. Why do they call it "Ground Zero"? Also what caused the secondary explosions and thermal blast?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:20:41 2019 No.11265194 >>11265118 How can Mineta recall that "the plane was 50, 30, 10 miles out" (from the PEOC), when that "plane" was AU 93, that crashed in Pennsylvania?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:27:34 2019 No.11265210
File: 47 KB, 300x474, mohammed-atta1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For me, it's finding the attackers passports in the streets and knowing who did it within hours when you apparently had no clue it was coming.
Jet fuel can weaken steel beams but not burn a passport apparently.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:29:55 2019 No.11265213

>>11264578
Oh my god this has been done to death.

No fire you are showing is accompanied by a plane impact. No plane impact had so much jet fuel burning uncontrollably. The jet impacts blew off much of the fire retardant coating the steel beams allowing them to be exposed to higher heat which was not what you get in a normal electrical and paper fire where at most carpeting and desks burn.

Why are we still debating this 18 years later? No conspiracy theory has held up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:36:19 2019 No.11265230 File: 1.12 MB, 3756x2440, glownigger posters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265213 >the science IS SETTLED

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:38:37 2019 No.11265235 https://anonfile.com/94Vbc8Kan4/911_webm reminder to ignore anything by Adam Green (Know more news) he's another CIA run "white supremacist" psy-op

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:39:02 2019 No.11265237

>>11265213
The NIST report did not find evidence for temperature for a "significant" bending of the steel (~ 1100 degrees Fahrenheit). In fact, the temperatures for which evidence was recovered did not exceed 480 degrees Fahrenheit, with the exception of three isolated spots.
>"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees [450 F.]" - NIST NCSTAR 1, p.90
They themselves even stated
>"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:57:41 2019 No.11265281 >>11265118 I genuinely interested, in how rationalize this: >>11265194

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:58:36 2019 No.11265283

>>11265021
That's a good question and it was one of the reason why I intially thought that the whole idea was crackpot insane. Also no gigantic flash and fireball. As for the latter, that is dealt with early on in the video.
As per the former, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the bomb was located deep underground, so much of the radiation was contained down there. It explains why there was molten steel reportedly flowing underneath the WTC site, up to two years after September 11th 2001.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:05:01 2019 No.11265294

>>11265213
University of Alaska just this year released a detailed computer model using finite fields showing conclusively that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire or in the way that the NIST report said it did. The only conclusion was that it was demolished. If Building 7 was demolished then WTC1 and 2 were as well. Although the mechanism in the case of the TT was very different.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:08:39 2019 No.11265303 >>11264176 This >>11264173 >>>/pol/ >>>/b/ >>>/trash/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:34:58 2019 No.11265362 >>11265283 Thanks for the clarification, mate. The claim seems to be outlandish (quite honestly), but I will inquire into the entire matter further.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:55:22 2019 No.11265408 File: 24 KB, 313x594, Fuck-911.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:17:36 2019 No.11265446 How can a Boeing 767 equipped with regular engines even fly for almost 2 minutes beyond 500 Mph. in the lower strata of the atmosphere without suffering any visible structural damage?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:25:39 2019 No.11265469 >>11264173 Remote or timer triggered shaped charges.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:30:49 2019 No.11265491

>>11265294
>a detailed computer model using finite fields showing conclusively that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire
The UAF report and simulation is full of errors.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.10890/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:42:08 2019 No.11265524 >>11265138 Great argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:43:49 2019 No.11265529 >>11265491 >Mick West Give me one good reason I should waste my time reading this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:46:12 2019 No.11265537 >>11265529 you shouldn't

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:49:53 2019 No.11265549
File: 7 KB, 250x241, pepe unimpressed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11265491
>In going against the official report, they needed to at least match the detail of NIST's graphics. Instead their presentation looks super cheap and wonky. They needed to blow people away on first sight, instead it looks embarrassingly low budget. Considering how rapidly software advances, how old the NIST report is and how long the Fairbanks project took, they should have exceeded the graphical presentation of NIST. Instead, their graphics look like they're from software 10 years older than NIST used.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:53:46 2019 No.11265556 For all of the 9 11 inside job anons, help me grasp something. Let's suppose it was actually demolished. Who would've planted the explosives?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:58:43 2019 No.11265573 File: 28 KB, 600x350, israeli art students 91st floor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265556 The israeli 'art students' known to have worked on the 91st floor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:00:01 2019 No.11265575 File: 2.63 MB, 260x200, 9057A9CC-2DBD-4249-B045-1D6BFAF10892.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265157 >tfw you find the hijackers’ passports in the wreckage

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:02:15 2019 No.11265582 >>11265549 lmao these are the same people who mindlessly consume video games solely based on whether or not the graphics are good

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:02:43 2019 No.11265584

>>11265556
There was construction work being done in elevators before the 9/11 attacks, afaik. If you'd like to know more, I suggest you watch the 3 part documentary, "50 Questions They Can't Answer". This here is part 1:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVYpZeH3Cqw

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:03:31 2019 No.11265589 >>11265573 Is there any speculation or clues on how they did it? Like whether it was done overnight or over a long timespan?

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:06:24 2019 No.11265603

>>11265582
That makes sense that those people would congregate there given that before he made the leap to writing about pop-sci skepticism Mick West was nothing more than a video game dev.
I'm currently reading that thread and do not see anything that trashes the UAF simulation (especially when he allows the NIST model to get away with far more egregious errors) and there is a healthy amount of criticism to West's conclusions within that thread itself.
This makes me wonder if >>11265491
has even read and understood the thread or just linked the first online message board he thinks would BTFO an academic paper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:07:30 2019 No.11265606 >>11265584 I'll check it out

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:08:41 2019 No.11265609

>>11265589
Yes there is a lot of speculation about it, they are also not only speculated causes, they were just the ones that first leapt to mind. I know that there were some people theorising about fireproofing work being done in the months prior.
I'm not an expert on this though but if you look you will find many different competing theories regarding this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:11:47 2019 No.11265618 >>11265606 It's very well researched. It displays the modern position of the "conspiracy theorists" and will give you enough insight to start an investigation of your own.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:14:37 2019 No.11265629

>>11265606
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qKxtIAbk0
This is also worth checking out to get an idea of people actually involved who present stories different to the official narrative. Even if you disagree with the content and conclusions of the video it is worth looking into the people mentioned to conduct your own research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:17:29 2019 No.11265636 >>11264176 /pol/ is for politics, please keep your scientific discussion about how the wtc fell on the science board.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:25:30 2019 No.11265655
File: 135 KB, 800x800, 1577759113515.jpg_1573159018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11265529
>>Mick West
>Give me one good reason I should waste my time reading this.
>>11265537
>you shouldn't
>>11265549
>>In going against the official report, they needed to at least match the detail of NIST's graphics. Instead their presentation looks super cheap and wonky. They needed to blow people away on first sight, instead it looks embarrassingly low budget. Considering how rapidly software advances, how old the NIST report is and how long the Fairbanks project took, they should have exceeded the graphical presentation of NIST. Instead, their graphics look like they're from software 10 years older than NIST used.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:26:37 2019 No.11265659 File: 747 KB, 1102x659, soyboy wojak edits.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:28:30 2019 No.11265666

>>11265157
>causing the first (1st) collapse of its kind in history.
Luckily we know nothing can ever happen since nothing can ever happen for thre first time.

>It's too bad the debris damage wasn't minor like WTC 6 which stayed standing.
Was WTC6 damaged by extensive and unabated fires for hours?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:29:56 2019 No.11265668 File: 1.89 MB, 2978x1271, 1572537328407.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11265659

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:35:26 2019 No.11265675

>>11265194
>>11265281
Did you even bother reading the link?

>At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft—presumably hijacked—heading towardWashington.That aircraft was United 93.The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA.The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return.Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.

>At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage.TheVice President again said yes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 21:45:25 2019 No.11265700

>>11265675
I know these statements. I recognize them from the 9/11 commission report. They do not explain, why US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta recalled an object (AA 77), approaching the White House from 50 miles to 30 and then to 10 miles. Was he delusional? Was he lying? Furthermore, Secret Service notes recently accessed under the Freedom of Information Act corroborate Mineta’s testimony, by re-stating that the calls in the command bunker were that “The plane is 30 miles out” and “The plane is 10 miles out,” and that the calls were made at 9:31a.m. and 9:34 a.m., respectively. The notes were taken by Secret Service agent Miles Kara, and are contained in a box of supporting 9/11 Commission documentation labeled “Miles Kara -- Misc.”. See:
>https://www.scribd.com/document/14553471/T8-B16-Misc-Work-Papers-Fdr-Secret-Service-Timeline
For more information, see:
>https://911truth.org/pentagon-hit-report-altered-hide-cheney-role/

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 22:45:31 2019 No.11265813

>>11265491
If you look at the UAF model and compare it with the NIST model it is clear that the UAF model is far superior. It actually matches what happened on that day and takes far more parameters into consideration, whereas the NIST model diverges from the events of that day significantly after only a few seconds and lacks important facts and details which should have been contained within the study.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 22:51:09 2019 No.11265831 >>11265362 No problem. If you can look for the video of the German nuclear physicist explaining it on yt, he has the most clear presentation imhho. After you watch it go away and think about it for five or ten minutes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 22:51:50 2019 No.11265836 >>11264175 >jews hit them >fires erupted >steel weakened fixed

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 22:59:07 2019 No.11265845 >>11264448 http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 You don't have a phobia against large scale mainstream scientific studies do you? Especially when they oresent a possible narrative that conflicts with the one you've a priori concluded to be true.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:02:28 2019 No.11265852

>>11264522
>melt? nobody talked about melting
That's strange because there was molten steel flowing around the WTC site for up to two years after 9/11/2001.
> it's a larger scale phenomenon
>It's easier to bend a hundred foot steel beam than it is a frying pan
Good logic.
Steel is currently being used in Musk's Starship because of its incredible capacity to deal with high temperatures during reentry. The starship is much bigger than a frying pan. Do you see a problem with your logic here?
>and it's so thick too
Ooookay... you faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:07:53 2019 No.11265856 >>11264778 40% of people think that it requires a more thorough investigation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:13:28 2019 No.11265869 >>11265852 Not him but different alloys behave differently.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:22:01 2019 No.11265883

>>11265603
I've spent a number of hours debating people on here about fairly complex topics like evolution/genetics etc. only to find out later that they were bots. This occurred with they started glitching out and replying to each other in a circular fashion. From this and other experiences, it is my opinion that an unexpectedly large number of the posters on this board who hug the status quo of ideas are actually advanced bots. Who is running them, I don't know, but given that they are way more advanced than anything publicly available in the AI realm (they pass the Turing Test with flying colours), I'm guess it is some sort of alphabet soup.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:28:11 2019 No.11265893 >>11265883 How would one say go about presenting themselves as a bot? what marks them out? are they just too perfect? what positions were they taking?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:28:21 2019 No.11265894 >>11265869 Which alloys? Differently how? How does one alloy differening from another explain how the metal remained molten underground for years without an officially disclosed heat source present?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:30:10 2019 No.11265896 >>11265883 How does onne know thou aren't the bot?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:32:03 2019 No.11265898 >>11264173 demolition charges placed there before hand

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 23:32:15 2019 No.11265899 >>11265894 stainless steel is a bitch to cut with a torch

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 02:24:09 2019 No.11266123

>The US government can keep a false flag attack on its own citizens secret for nearly two decades without any whistleblowers or adverse findings from government investigators.
>POTUS can’t even make a dodgy phone call to the Ukrainian President without a whistleblower letting everyone know about it.
Kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 02:25:16 2019 No.11266124 File: 48 KB, 570x537, npc chimpout.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11266123 >without any whistleblowers see: >>11265629 dumb zogbot

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 05:23:41 2019 No.11266310 >>11265883 Check out the old bot that spammed the /gw2g/ threads in /vg/ for years. It would copy posts from various chans, but some of the posts were completely coherent but couldn't be found in any archive on 4chan or otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 06:40:53 2019 No.11266369 >>11264203 They detonated WTC7, not the Twin Towers. And in any case, that would contradict the official version

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 06:54:09 2019 No.11266380

>>11265883
People from this place denied some of the most powerful people on the planet their choice for US president a few years ago. You think they're just going to say aw shucks guess you beat me? No. They need control. Sure, we were only a small part of a perfect storm, but they'll just push back on each part individually, i.e. controlling narratives here with bots & forum manipulation tactics, shutting up assange, etc.

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 08:31:59 2019 No.11266468

>>11265700
>They do not explain, why US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta recalled an object (AA 77), approaching the White House from 50 miles to 30 and then to 10 miles.
Of course they explain it, Mineta got his timeline confused and mistook statements he heard about flight 93 for flight 77. This is proven by the other events he said were going on at the dance time, like the evacuation of the White House, which occurred after 77 had hit.

>Furthermore, Secret Service notes recently accessed under the Freedom of Information Act corroborate Mineta’s testimony, by re-stating that the calls in the command bunker were that “The plane is 30 miles out” and “The plane is 10 miles out,” and that the calls were made at 9:31a.m. and 9:34 a.m., respectively.
The guy who wrote the notes says you're wrong: http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3785

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 08:35:06 2019 No.11266476

>>11265813
>If you look at the UAF model and compare it with the NIST model it is clear that the UAF model is far superior. It actually matches what happened on that day
LOL, it matches because it's an animation done by hand to look like what happened, not a model based on physics.

>and takes far more parameters into consideration
What parameters?

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 08:50:08 2019 No.11266494

>>11265845
>large scale mainstream scientific studies
None of those words actually describe the UAF paper. It's an obvious fraud. The "models" contain animations with no physical basis and the conclusion that fire could not cause the collapse cannot be proven by modeling only one scenario under unrealistic conditions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 08:50:59 2019 No.11266495 >>11265408 I'd definitely jump if I were them, even if I knew it'd kill me

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 09:02:42 2019 No.11266508 >>11265856 Then why aren't conspiracy theorists being thorough?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 09:04:35 2019 No.11266512 >>11265894 Because you're full of shit. Show evidence "molten metal" was steel or was found years later.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 10:58:06 2019 No.11266682 >>11265303 >>>>/lgbt/ for (You)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 11:29:00 2019 No.11266725 >>11265883 Take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 13:45:02 2019 No.11267026 >>11266468 You're right, I read your source. Mineta must have been mistaken.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 14:43:55 2019 No.11267201 >>11266512 Use Google or some other search engine. All the information in the world is at your fingertips. I'm not spoonfeeding you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 14:46:17 2019 No.11267205 >>11266508 What? A government funded investigation covers up what took place and that's fine. But you are concerned with whether or not "crackpot conspiracy theorists" are being thorough? At least get your narrative straight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 14:50:47 2019 No.11267214 >>11264228 fuck are you saying?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 14:54:23 2019 No.11267221 >>11265020 Buildings aren't single rigid pieces, you shouldn't expect them to fall like trees.

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 14:59:06 2019 No.11267231

>>11265893
It was a number of years ago, so I can't recall the details exactly. But I recall I was in a debate with an SJW type who was attempting to use his knowledge of genetics to prove that race doesn't exist. Initially I listened to what he had to say because he appeared to be an authority on the subject, speaking about alleles and such things. Then, I started doing my own research and was quickly able to beat him back into a corner with some other anons. I found out it was a bot later, when it started to duplicate posts or do some other weird behaviour, but other than that it gave no indication. It presented a seeminglw coherent case, made pleas to "rationalism" like you might expect on this board and when that didn't work, it became insulting. In short it was indistinguishable from the average neckbeard /sci/ poster.

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 15:07:16 2019 No.11267243

>>11264591
>this is true but there is a policy of intercepting and shooting down hijacked planes that are heading for an urban centre
Now there is. There wasn't at the time. There was some discussion about doing it, and F16's were scrambled, but the planes had all crashed before they even got close.

>i suspect the shanksville crash might have been due to a successful interception and then semi-covered up to avoid having to explain that the USAF just shot down a civilian aircraft
We have the cockpit audio from the black box. You can hear the passengers break into the cockpit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 15:09:39 2019 No.11267248 >>11265167 It did withstand the impact. The towers both stood for hours before collapsing. The impact didn't knock them down, the fire did.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 15:18:17 2019 No.11267265 /FFwRXKq

Anonymous Tue Dec 31 19:52:14 2019 No.11267883

>>11264173
>>11264173
>>11264173
To cut costs when they were building the building the engineers preplaced the demolition charges they would eventually use when they were demolishing the towers. The planes accidentally set off the charges and demolished the buildings. It is so embarrassing for the engineers that they don't talk about it much.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 21:37:52 2019 No.11268037 What caused all the pulverised dust? normal demolitions don't produce that much.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 01:26:18 2020 No.11268325 >>11266494 What about the dancing israelis?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 01:34:23 2020 No.11268343 >>11268037 Yes they do

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 02:30:02 2020 No.11268412 >>11265883 I know what you're saying to be true and it scares me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 12:11:04 2020 No.11269215 >>11267201 So you're full of shit, thanks for admitting that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 12:13:09 2020 No.11269219 >>11267205 >A government funded investigation covers up what took place and that's fine If they covered it up, how do you know?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 12:53:42 2020 No.11269309 >>11269215 Kek! CLASSIC! That's a Earther tactic for trolling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 13:33:06 2020 No.11269404 >>11268325 What dancing israelis?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 13:35:24 2020 No.11269416 >>11269309 ???

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 19:04:59 2020 No.11270177 google war by deception

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 19:06:44 2020 No.11270183 google USS Liberty if you want to see who was really behind the 9/11 attacks

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 19:21:43 2020 No.11270212 >>11270183 Google non sequitur

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 08:46:40 2020 No.11271227 File: 3.83 MB, 640x480, wtc7.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How could a failure in one column (column 79) cause the symmetrical collapse of Building 7?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 09:09:30 2020 No.11271263 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11271227 It can't, if you ignore every other factor contributing to the collapse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 09:38:45 2020 No.11271330 >>11271263 I'm not a structural enigneer, but afaik, you'd need all supporting elements to fail simultaneously for a symmetrical collapse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 10:30:43 2020 No.11271417 File: 1.77 MB, 1177x615, WTC 1, 5, 6, 7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WTC 5 and 6 that were closer to the collapsing WTC 1 were damaged, as well, but they stood. Whereas WTC 7 was entirely destroyed. How is that possible?

Coffeeberry Thu Jan 2 10:44:17 2020 No.11271434
File: 191 KB, 1280x720, perfectdestruction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11264173

The 10 gagillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld accounced missing from the Pentagon created a false vacume implosion that was so large, and pardoxically small, that it caused the fall of literally the largest financial center in the United States.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:01:14 2020 No.11271461 >>11271417 If it was an inside job why would they leave 5 and 6 standing but destroy 7? It's better explained by pure luck.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:12:14 2020 No.11271491

>>11271461
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_7_World_Trade_Center
Maybe, it was supposed to be struct be UA 93. Maybe, they wanted to destroy it, because it its tenants were government agencies (the Department of Defense, the CIA and the Secret Service), and it contained fatal evidence for the demolition of WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon. It's speculation.

>It's better explained by pure luck.
A entire building collapses, but there is no investigation needed afterwards, because "it was luck"? That's bullshit, a thourough investigation is needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:20:45 2020 No.11271522 >>11271491 there were some massive financial fraud investigations with main offices in the world trade centre and the department of the pentagon that was blow up

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:21:48 2020 No.11271529 >>11271522 I know. It's not an evidence for a conspiracy, though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:28:07 2020 No.11271546 >>11264328 >that fuel would've burned up instantly No it wouldn't. Jet fuel is basically kerosene.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 11:47:09 2020 No.11271596

>>11271546
>"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes." (p. 183/p. 233)
>"Jet fuel sprayed onto the surfaces of typical office workstations burned away within a few minutes." (p. 184)

Link:
>https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf

I think the term "instantly" is appropriate for a few (~ 5) minutes, considering the fires burnt for ~ 1 hour in both buildings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 12:47:48 2020 No.11271747 >>11271330 Your own gif showed it was not symmetrical, the collapse started in the eastern section of the building which is why it's leaning to the left. It was a progressive collapse, not simultaneous failures.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 12:53:33 2020 No.11271768 >>11271529 It's evidence for a possible motive if let's say there were a conspiracy though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 12:58:43 2020 No.11271781 >>11271417 LOL WTC 7 was five times higher than WTC5 and 6. They had different support systems. Fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:00:57 2020 No.11271793 >>11271596 Surely as appropriate as saying a match burns up "instantly" and therefore cannot be used to light a fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:02:22 2020 No.11271799 >>11264173 >please explain to me how flying a jet into a building is bad for that building's structural integrity How was this ever a question? Were humans in the past really that stupid?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:27:53 2020 No.11271863 >>11264173 Why do you care? Are you an aspiring structural engineer?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:31:14 2020 No.11271873 >>11264228 The architectural consequences were the US properly policing it's god damn fucking air space so god damned fucking airliners at god damned fucking travelling speeds wouldn't goddamned fucking hit them with full fucking tanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:38:45 2020 No.11271884 >>11271491 There's no way building 7 was supposed to get hit by a plane.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:41:03 2020 No.11271886

>>11271747
It was not prefectly symmetrical, but nearly symmetrical, and therefore the entire structure must have failed at a nearly simultaneous time. Furthermore, it collapsed entirely, not partially, as it would've been expected with damage, localized on the eastern side. Something must've destroyed the western side. What was it?

>>11271781
>They had different support systems.
Prove, how the "support system" of Building 7 was weaker than the support systems of WTC 5 and 6. Besides, the reason, why I posted the picture, was to show that buildings do not collapse entirely (as WTC 7 did), but partially, localized at the position where they've been damaged (as WTC 5 and 6 did), due to structural failure.

>>11271793
I don't think the anon was suggesting, the jet fuel was brunt up instantly and therefore could not have lit a fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:45:03 2020 No.11271897 why was molten iron seen pouring from the corner of one tower before it collapsed at that exact spot?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:50:10 2020 No.11271907 >>11264333 Except that steel only gets stronger and stronger as you heat it. The point at which it starts becoming weak again is tremendously high, you definitely need a furnace and the correct fuel.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:51:00 2020 No.11271911

>>11271873
The Twin Towers were supposed to withstand an impact of a 767. The architects of the Twin Towers claimed, they would. Yet, apparently they did not. Don't you think, there should've been an investigation, concerning these architects and their other projects? What would you have expected, if you'd been the architect, and you'd claimed your construction withstood a specific disaster and when this specific disaster then happened, your construction failed? I'd expect, the police to be knocking at my door and an exhausting lawsuit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 13:54:49 2020 No.11271914 >>11271863 I care about the truth. >>11271884 Well, why not, could've happened. There was certainly not "no way".

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 14:00:32 2020 No.11271923

The towers were on the verge of falling over (onto other buildings or causing otherwise worse damages) so they made a judgement call and blasted explosives to make the towers collapse in a controllable manner instead.

They cannot officially acknowledge it because it would open up lawsuits from relatives of the deceased over "they might've not fallen over."

That's for me the most plausible explanation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 14:03:28 2020 No.11271926 >>11271923 >The towers You're speaking of WTC 7 exclusively, don't you? How should they have planted the explosives in the Twin Towers in ~ 1 hour?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 14:07:35 2020 No.11271947 File: 63 KB, 687x386, temperature-strength-metals-SI.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11271907 thought I'd check this https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 14:13:06 2020 No.11271968 >>11271926 They were already there for exactly that purpose.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:19:56 2020 No.11272148

>>11271886
>It was not prefectly symmetrical, but nearly symmetrical, and therefore the entire structure must have failed at a nearly simultaneous time.
They did, in a chain of failures from east to west.

>Furthermore, it collapsed entirely, not partially, as it would've been expected with damage, localized on the eastern side.
The damage wasn't localized, it spread.

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

If something doesn't make sense to you, first examine your assumptions.

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:34:32 2020 No.11272189

>>11271968
i don't think they build skyscrapers with a self-destruct button in case they suddenly need it to not exist in the next 5 minutes
that would just be asking for trouble
if a skyscraper needs demolishing they send in a demolition team who take their time, particularly with regards to whether people are in the building or not

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:40:30 2020 No.11272204

>>11271886
>Prove, how the "support system" of Building 7 was weaker than the support systems of WTC 5 and 6.
I didn't say it's weaker, I said it's different. A 47 story building is not built the same as a 9 story building. When a support has 30 floors above it will react differently to stress than a support with one floor above it. Use your brain. Also, WTC5 had a portion of the building with Gerber framing instead of girders that go all the way from one column to another. That part of the building collapsed.

>Besides, the reason, why I posted the picture, was to show that buildings do not collapse entirely (as WTC 7 did), but partially, localized at the position where they've been damaged (as WTC 5 and 6 did), due to structural failure.
Pictures of black cats don't show all cats are black.

Here are several counterexamples toyour nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:43:34 2020 No.11272217 >>11271886 >I don't think the anon was suggesting, the jet fuel was brunt up instantly and therefore could not have lit a fire. Then what was he suggesting?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:44:37 2020 No.11272223 >>11271897 >molten iron Says who?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 15:47:14 2020 No.11272236 >>11271911 >The Twin Towers were supposed to withstand an impact of a 767. They did though. They didn't withstand the impact AND the fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 16:06:04 2020 No.11272317 >>11272223 Well it wasn't molten aluminium or kerosene

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 17:09:02 2020 No.11272438 >>11264396 Yes Anon but JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 17:15:44 2020 No.11272457 >>11272317 So basically you're just pulling this shit out of your ass.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 17:18:37 2020 No.11272464 >>11272438 Who said they melted?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 17:52:02 2020 No.11272515 File: 669 KB, 960x696, 1574857669202.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11264173 jet-fuel can't melt steel beams

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 18:04:06 2020 No.11272542 >>11264173 >Afghanistan would be the first war the US started without falseflagging itself since fucking Pearl Harbor yeah i doubt it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 20:10:40 2020 No.11272820 >>11264173 GWB was anxious for hillary's fukboi slurped all easy-to-win wars. You can not have patriotism without easy war, look at Nixon... Took a sip of whiskey-diet coka, put Fight-Club into DVD... Eurekaaaaa !

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 20:38:07 2020 No.11272871 >19 years have passed and this is still the best the feds can come up with

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 20:46:17 2020 No.11272888 >>11272871 its like the jfk assassination, they'll just keep telling lies until everyone old enough to be upset. suspicious or distrustful of the government over the issue is dead and the issue finally dropped.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 22:52:10 2020 No.11273137 >>11265666 >666

Anonymous Thu Jan 2 23:23:19 2020 No.11273199

I could quite happily live with the official versions except for the pentagon.

Only footage I have seen is a very short, very blurry video of what could be a missile, as much as a plane, coming in at an extraordinarily low approach, almost level to the ground.

Not saying it was a missile. Its hard to make out exactly what hits, it could have been a flaming whale. But it puzzles me how inexperienced pilots could pull of the precision flying needed for such a strike and how a strike upon the most important military structure in the USA results in only a tiny amount of such blurry footage to view.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 00:38:02 2020 No.11273396 >>11273199 What about the dna? Did they just float all the passenger remains?

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 00:56:34 2020 No.11273436

>>11273396

If I were a conspiracy nut then I suppose I would say some agency seeded the DNA, or somehow fabricated evidence of it, which I guess you mean by "float".

But I am not looking for an inside job, I just find the circumstances I mentioned puzzling, as do a great many people whose experience, rationality and integrity I respect. Without pointing the finger at anyone or anything, or making wild and baseless accusations, I suspect there is more to the story than the official version and furthermore we shall never know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 01:51:23 2020 No.11273538 >>11273436 I sounded dismissive but for all I know some anon has a good explanation for how the dna was fabricated if it would even need to be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 02:12:12 2020 No.11273581 >>11273436 What about the people who died? Did they just take hundreds of people out into a field and murder them?

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 02:25:42 2020 No.11273612

>>11273581
I have no idea. But would you care to explain how inexperienced pilots managed a low altitude, low angle, precision hit with a jet aircraft on the low profile presented by the Pentagon building and then why there is scant and only blurry footage of the incident of the most important facility in the United States in the year 2001?

>I have no idea, maybe blah blah blah...

And there we have it. A lot of speculation and guesswork. That is all there is. You could dig around on utube, I am sure there will be someone with some theory or other.

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 02:33:36 2020 No.11273625

>>11273612
What? You must absolutely answer my question or admit the official account is correct.

Who murdered the hundreds of passengers? We know they existed because they have family and friends. So who took them out into a field and shot them? Soldiers? Cops? Paid street thugs? Who's on the government payroll to keep quiet for 20 years? Who never once questioned their roll in murdering hundreds of Americans in order to push a conspiracy and came forward to show where the bodies are buried?

Whatever narrative you push must explain the details or the official account is the most reasonable answer. The Pentagon is fucking huge, it is one of the biggest, easiest to hit targets near Washington DC. It has a very distinct footprint easily seen from the air. The plane came in so fast the few security cameras, not setup expecting the building to be hit by a goddamned plane could barely catch it coming in.

Now it's your turn. Explain what happened to the passengers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 02:45:29 2020 No.11273639 >>11273625 Okay, you got me, I admit the official version is correct, and I am a rabbit. My father and mother were rabbits. Can I go home now? Please? Sir?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 04:12:24 2020 No.11273740 >>11273612 Questioning the official story with the line of secret missile launches and bus loads of missing passengers is the same retarded shit as the magic bullet, the meat of contention lies elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 04:49:15 2020 No.11273785 >>11264173 >September 11, 2001 The exact moment the world, the life and every single thing in our society went shit.

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 05:04:31 2020 No.11273818

>>11264173
back in the 1980s the CIA funded a proxy war in afghanistan with local militias against the soviet union by developing a loose financial network amongst random sandnigger oil barons and unaccounted funds, eventually the soviet union got tired of losing helicopters and took the hint and left, something a narcissist like mcnamara couldnt do, among the now abandoned backwater militias were isolationist people who absolutely fucking loathed western global hegemony and all of its effects and believed in nothing but its destruction, those people still had the same financial contacts thet the CIA had set up and set about funding projects of attacking anything they could, eventually one of those attack was very public and couldnt be ignored in a news cycle and the CIA set about spreading false information through alternative channels to obfuscate their responsibility similar to their campaign to obfuscate experimental Spy aircraft during the 1960s and make discussion of the subject bring instant disinterest by the general public

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 05:24:04 2020 No.11273842 >>11265836 yeah, those classic jewish names like "Mohammed Atta"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 05:29:24 2020 No.11273848 >>11273842 technically speaking saudi arabians are genetically semitic while the majority of jews arent

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 05:38:33 2020 No.11273859 >>11273818 >cia fucked up and their former proxies came back to bite them in the ass I wish I was still naive enough to believe hubris and incompetence was the extent of their wrongdoing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 05:44:14 2020 No.11273865 >>11273859 successful operations are only heard about through vague rumors, theyre never on tv bud

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 06:00:49 2020 No.11273890 >>11273848 'Semitic' is a linguistic term, not a genetic lineage. It does not mean the same thing as 'Jewish'. Yes, even though anti-Semitism means hating Jews.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 06:05:39 2020 No.11273894 >>11273890 >being this much of a fucking autist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 06:08:48 2020 No.11273895 >>11273894 You're on a science and math board. If you're gonna call me an autist for pointing out the important technicalities here, then why even browse this place? That brand of autism is par for the course.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 07:09:57 2020 No.11273956 >>11273890 but you can use it to say hating arabic or amharic speakers too

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 07:12:47 2020 No.11273959 >>11273785 how did they assemble the patriot act so quickly?

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 07:50:21 2020 No.11273992

>>11264496
wtc 1 and 2 are monocoque like and maintain their integrity with the force of the exterior walls, if the floors go the walls go, if the walls go out the support for the floor goes with it blowing out a 20 floor hole in the wall is like blowing out 20 support columns in the empire state building, leaving only the remaining rigidity of the internal stair/elevator section on the effected floors holding themselves up and the 20 sum floor above the weakened structure while not having structural support to stay intact

wtc 7 is a traditional I beam building maintained with inner columns similar to the empire state building

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 07:51:24 2020 No.11273995 >>11273959 it was already written moron

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:03:35 2020 No.11274008 >>11273995 Then why did it take over a month to be introduced?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:07:44 2020 No.11274014 >>11274008 to fill in the blanks

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:29:12 2020 No.11274045 >>11274014 Which blanks?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:30:51 2020 No.11274050 >>11274045 you are fucking obtuse

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:37:07 2020 No.11274063 File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11274050 >gets caught lying >complains about it

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 08:46:41 2020 No.11274077

>>11271914
>I care about the truth.
If you care about the truth of this building collapse, there is a process for finding it. It starts with enrolling at a university to become an expert in structural engineering, getting a degree and publishing papers on the subject that can subsequently be peer reviewed by other experts in the field so you can all come to an understanding of what the truth is.

But you're not doing that. You're just posting stuff that sounded clever to you when you heard it on the internet and post it on an anonymous image board.
I do not think you take this pursuit of truth all that seriously. Yet you still wasted 20 years of your life ineffectually brooding on the subject and annoying everyone around you with these pointless thoughts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 10:01:25 2020 No.11274172

>>11274063
>lying
delayed notification warrants, automatic warrants or warrantless seizure were originally provisions in drafts of failed bills prior to CALEA of 1994, mandatory gag orders werent conceived of but the other legal provisions were conceived of in the clinton administration
CALEA compliance includes warrantless data retreival

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 10:08:24 2020 No.11274183 >>11264233 >>11264244 >>11264255 >>11267214 Damn I'm not even english and I understood his (or her) point

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 10:30:45 2020 No.11274225 >>11264328 No one understands particle fires Hint:a fire can burn hotter than its component parts. See also >>11264323 Lastly why bother with the planes if it was a conspiracy? Just claim it was bombed if you prepacked explosives

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 10:35:07 2020 No.11274233

>>11273959
They had been pushing different part sof it for years. Every different spook and and their cronys used it as a chance to add in every power grab they had been wanting for years.
Most congress bills are like this, where you add in something unrelated to get other state reps to vote for the bill, and this one was a free for all. No one was going to dare vote against it during the boomer visit to crazy town that was the post 9/11 political world

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 11:30:00 2020 No.11274354 >>11274172 Now you're just equivocating.

Anonymous Fri Jan 3 11:51:39 2020 No.11274395

>>11264560
>if your theory were valid, there should've been a declaration of the collapse.
Not him, but nah. Once you exceed the shear strength of a single floor, you'd expect an unstoppable descent through every other floor at close to 1g of acceleration. This is because shearing isn't plastic deformation, so almost no energy is absorbed during the break as heat. So the only decelerating force is that the mass of every floor needs to be accelerated from zero to the velocity of the rubble above it. However this slowing force becomes less and less as the ratio of rubble mass to individual floor mass becomes greater. Twenty floors in the energy needed to accelerate another floor becomes nearly negligible compared to the energy the moving mass has.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 13:59:45 2020 No.11274611 >jet fuel wackos on /sci/ good to see this board has gotten even worse

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 14:15:11 2020 No.11274642 If it were so hot why were people seen walking around the crash hole and waving for help?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 15:00:46 2020 No.11274745 >>11274642 Not every part of the building was on fire, moron. If there weren't fires, why did people jump to their deaths?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 15:22:07 2020 No.11274784 File: 2.41 MB, 540x360, Jet Fuel Can Melt Steel Beams.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11264328 >jet fuel can't melt steel beams anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 02:50:16 2020 No.11276104 >>11264173 Jesus H. Christ, watch the NOVA documentary about it, then come back with something a little more specific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 03:03:29 2020 No.11276121 there are too many coincidences for me to buy into it

Anonymous Sat Jan 4 03:08:05 2020 No.11276124

>>11265556
the buildings had a main support column down the middle, weeks before the attack there was elevator maintenance on this section. the subbasement carpark had a truck with explosives parked there the day before. they caught the people who did it on their way to the george washington bridge the same day 9/11 happened, but things got lost in the confusion and they received diplomatic immunity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 03:11:31 2020 No.11276127 If WTC 7 were rigged to blow ahead of time, then why would they wait for seven hours to bring it down instead of doing it right when the north tower went (which supposedly they also had control over)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 17:13:59 2020 No.11277422 >>11264193 >The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. Just like the RMS Titanic was designed to be unsinkable...

Anonymous Sat Jan 4 17:24:48 2020 No.11277457

>>11277422
funny thing about the titanic it just so coincidentally happened to be carrying most of the most prominent opponents to the federal reserve when it sunk, removing opposiition to the fiscal parasite that caused the depression and great crash of 1929 there's a lot of speculation about her sister ship the Olympia

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 17:37:19 2020 No.11277502 >>11267231 >a 4chan poster 'acting weird' HOLY SHIT IT WAS A BOT!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 4 17:38:33 2020 No.11277507 >>11268412 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 5 01:53:35 2020 No.11278537 >>11264471 Post the uncut gif that shows the penthouse dropping through an entire side of the building first

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math