There isnt ONE good scientifical explaination on why this building collapsed. The ONLY WAY it is possible is with the use of EXPLOSIVES. So who do you idiot media puppets out there believe fire did that?

File: 337 KB, 360x320, wtc7[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 15:56:53 2011 No.3173564 [Reply] [Original]

There isnt ONE good scientifical explaination on why this building collapsed. The ONLY WAY it is possible is with the use of EXPLOSIVES.

So who do you idiot media puppets out there believe fire did that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 15:57:53 2011 No.3173568 >So who do you idiot media puppets out there believe fire did that? But it did. Structural damage and uncontrolled fires brought it down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 15:59:53 2011 No.3173576 >>3173568 scientically impossible

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:00:53 2011 No.3173578 >>3173576 o rly? prove it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:01:53 2011 No.3173581 >>3173576 >scientically

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:02:53 2011 No.3173583

You're correct OP. There is no explanation at all. It is probably one of, if not the largest, anomaly in structural engineering to date. One 4chan-er said it best in an older thread: "Screw demolition charges if you want to demolish a building, just start a fire on a couple floors and throw some rubble on the roof."

Haha. But yes, this is a question that deserves an adequate answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:03:53 2011 No.3173586 >>3173578 the building fell at free fall speed directly onto its footprint

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:04:53 2011 No.3173592 >>3173586 that doesn't prove anything, save for what it explicitly states. Making assumptions is a dangerous thing anon...

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:05:53 2011 No.3173595

>Heavily hit by debris
>Fire

>Hurr its scientically impossibru for it to fall with out explosives, i saw it on the blog of a guy called "R3ptili4n Illum1n4ti"!

Anyone who knows basic shit about explosives and demolitions can easily see that it was NOT a controlled demolition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:07:53 2011 No.3173600 NEVER FORGET to look at the extensive damages to the other side of the building. I mean seriously it's 2011 and people still post that stupid picture? it's intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:07:53 2011 No.3173603

>>3173583
>Haha. But yes, this is a question that deserves an adequate answer.
There wasn't just rubble on the roof. There was significant structural damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

But it was really the uncontrolled fires that brought it down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:12:53 2011 No.3173621 >>3173603 Uncontrolled fires initiated from an external source(s) bringing down a reinforced building with a kink in the middle, inward and near freefall collapse. Get real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:16:53 2011 No.3173625 >>3173621 Everything you said seems plausible to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:17:53 2011 No.3173631 >>3173621 the building did not have a reinforced center or outer coating

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:17:53 2011 No.3173639 >>3173625 I would disagree. Clearly the "Get real" part escapes you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:17:53 2011 No.3173640 File: 5 KB, 203x251, 1299533360674s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:17:53 2011 No.3173641

buldings on fire that didn't fall down:
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfk9ddEwt31qc04t9o1_500.jpg

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfk9ddEwt31qc04t9o1_500.jpg
check out the picture 2 of the floors burned but the building didn't fell down

http://operatorchan.org/s/src/s21656_Fire%20building.jpg
and that's made of fucking wood

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:18:53 2011 No.3173642 >LULZ JEWS DID WTC

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:19:53 2011 No.3173646 >>3173603 minor damage

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:19:53 2011 No.3173650 >>3173621 >hurr 110 stories of falling rubble is nothing. >going to insult anyone who doesn't believe my inane conspiracy theory with "get real"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:19:53 2011 No.3173651 >>3173639 Your arguments from intuition are invalid. Clearly YOU don't see what's going on here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:20:53 2011 No.3173652 >mfw some member of the emergency services comes out in twenty years time to admit that they planted explosives in WTC 7 so it would fall in a controlled fashion, but never told anyone

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:21:53 2011 No.3173663 >>3173652 LOL This only reveals how incredibly delusional the conspiracies are. It's not going to happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:21:53 2011 No.3173666 ATTENTION ANON: ARE YOU: A) A CIVIL ENGINEER OR B) A DEMOLUTIONS EXPERT ? IF NOT, SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU KNOW NOTHING. -The management.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:22:53 2011 No.3173671 Guys, this is the nation that couldn't hide a hotel break-in and a blowjob, and couldn't or wouldn't fabricate the discovery of WMDs in Iraq. Truthers are delusional.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:22:53 2011 No.3173673 File: 14 KB, 300x225, The-Thinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3173652 >mfw you live in fairy-tale land

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:23:53 2011 No.3173674

>>3173603

I'm still a tad skeptical for two reasons. Despite dozens of examples where buildings caught fire, sometimes even entirely, this is the first that has ever collapsed. And not only collapsed, but perfectly symetrical and at near free fall. It's just really eerie.

The second part that I'm skeptical on is the manner of collapse. Why not a partial collapse on the side that was damaged?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:23:53 2011 No.3173676 >>3173671 Hey guize the biggest establishment in the known universe isn't smart enough to demolish buildings rofl ur so dum

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:24:53 2011 No.3173679 >>3173674 did you miss the "covered in 110 stories of debris" part?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:53 2011 No.3173680 Why do you care so much about one building

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:53 2011 No.3173682 >>3173676 >rofl ur so dum gtfo please, this website is for people ages 18 and above

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:53 2011 No.3173686 >>3173652 The most rational decision if the structure is compromised and the expected damage from an collision exceeds the total damage caused by a controlled demolition.

>>	Structural engineer Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:53 2011 No.3173688 I wonder why people believe this? this entire scenerio was explained to us in the first day of structures class. It was possible, and it happened.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:53 2011 No.3173687
File: 39 KB, 363x356, semicontrolled_demolition.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3173673
>>3173663

I don't mean any kind of conspiracy, I just mean maybe a dozen emergency workers on the scene decide to do it. They don't tell superiors, they just make a panicked call on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:26:53 2011 No.3173690 >>3173676 And hide the fact and get away with it? No, they aren't capable of it. Note before, the three examples of easymode shit that they couldn't keep under wraps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:26:53 2011 No.3173691 >>3173682 Brilliant rebuttal. >gtfo seems we are on in the same, dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:26:53 2011 No.3173696 >>3173687 > I just mean maybe a dozen emergency workers on the scene decide to do it. They don't tell superiors, they just make a panicked call on it. What the fuck Planting explosives for demolition takes weeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:27:53 2011 No.3173699 >>3173690 That is implying that the same establishment actually tried to hide any of that, what evidence do you have to back that up?

>>	Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt Sat Jun 4 16:27:53 2011 No.3173701 >>3173676 They weren't smart enough to pull off conspiracies of just a couple people like Watergate, and Clinton's blowjob.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:27:53 2011 No.3173702 Truthers are no different than people who watch Fox News and believe that humans haven't affected global climate. Both groups pretend to be experts in fields they know jack shit about and just repeat what other people say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:27:53 2011 No.3173703 >>3173688 My architecture prof explained it to us as well when a bunch of conspiracy theorist attacked him. It was funny how he shut them down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:27:53 2011 No.3173704 how can you believe that world trade 7 collapsed due to explosives if it is just a theory/ a guess? counter troll

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:28:53 2011 No.3173706 >>3173674 >Why not a partial collapse on the side that was damaged? Cascading failure. There are detailed analyses of the support structure, the damage present, and the failure mode.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:28:53 2011 No.3173712

>>3173674
It wasn't just affected by fire. two buildins considerably larger than it collapsed right next to it

when a building falls, it doesnt fall like a tree being cut down. floors collapsed onto floors as the walls in between break away.

it wasn't a partial collapse because it wasn't just minor damage. there's a dominos effect, as one support falls away, so does the part it was supporting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:29:53 2011 No.3173717 >>3173687 how would they have the resources to do that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:29:53 2011 No.3173718 >>3173703 So you can't even present his argument? People are suppose to believe you just because you say your professor once told some people that it's possible? Really, you think people are this gullible?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:29:53 2011 No.3173719 >>3173699 >implying Watergate, the Monica Lewinski scandal, and the lack of WMDs in Iraq weren't all fucking disasters You really are just irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:29:53 2011 No.3173720 >>3173691 No, gtfo is not text speak. also, I don't make fun of people for not believing in baseless conspiracy theories

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:30:53 2011 No.3173724 >>3173718 lol Just shut the fuck up and take the class yourself. No one owes you an explanation. Learning is YOUR job. Go do it if you care.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:31:53 2011 No.3173730 >>3173724 So you come into a thread, assuming people are going to believe your word with absolutely nothing to back it up, then get angry when somebody calls you out on bullshit?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:32:53 2011 No.3173737

>>3173674
>perfectly symertical

Please. It wasn't perfectly symetrical. You have to remember the massive scale of dropping buildings. It's visually very difficult to see the extent of the angle of collapse. A tilt at the roof of 2 or 3 degrees could mean 30 or 40 feet off-center. Which is pretty significant for a deviation, considering.

>near free fall
That gets thrown around a lot. And is a poor argument for several reasons.

First, it wasn't near free fall. It was a few seconds in drop time behind free fall. Which is a big deal.

Second, why would demolitions be at free fall? Unless they simultaneously blew out every floor (which wasnt seen anywhere), then it would fall slow as well.

Third, massive amounts of weight and strain and impact forces coming down will speed up a building collapse pretty fast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:32:53 2011 No.3173738 Ps: WTC7 did NOT fall at freefall speed. It wasn't even close actually. The more you know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:32:53 2011 No.3173740 >>3173706 Can you point me to these anaylses please? I'm not aware of who did the analysis. I know the 9/11 Commission only mentioned 7 in a single footnote. Did NIST do a building 7 analysis?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:32:53 2011 No.3173741 >>3173720 I made fun of him for thinking that the biggest government in the world was the boy scouts. You should take some reading comprehension classes.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:33:53 2011 No.3173744

>>3173730
>So you come into a thread, assuming people are going to believe your word with absolutely nothing to back it up
>my bullshit
You are hilarious. You act like I'm the only person in the whole goddamn world who believes it came down like all the civil engineers in the world believe it did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:33:53 2011 No.3173745 >>3173730 You are the one making the assertion against accepted knowledge. You are one who has to prove his claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:33:53 2011 No.3173746 >>3173724 The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are idiots but so are you.. learn to pay attention in structures class. You obviously learnt jackshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:33:53 2011 No.3173747 >>3173671 but they did successfully kill JFK

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:33:53 2011 No.3173748 >>3173719 It would seem to me that all of those instances the government had something they wanted to do, and those allowed them to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:34:53 2011 No.3173752 >>3173746 Just who do you think I am? I doubt I made the post that demonstrates ignorance. >>3173748 Right, so allowing all those scandals is just Part Of The Conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:35:53 2011 No.3173753 >>3173744 >all the civil engineers in the world believe it did. Do you have evidence to back up another one of your bullshit claims?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:36:53 2011 No.3173759

>>3173753
>Do you have evidence to back up another one of your bullshit claims?
You're beyond help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#Reactions
>The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.
And yes, there are sources.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:36:53 2011 No.3173760 >>3173741 >couldn't hide a hotel break-in and a blowjob, >can hide planting 10000+ pounds of explosives in highly populated facilities that are open 24 hours a day OKAY

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:36:53 2011 No.3173762 >>3173752 obviously, i meant the guy you were talking to, conspiracyfag

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:36:53 2011 No.3173763 >>3173745 >one group of people say something is accepted knowledge even though a large portion of the population disagrees with it. I don't think you know what accepted knowledge actually means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:37:53 2011 No.3173769 >>3173746 Yeah, when will these idiots learn that the natural force through-out the entire structure practically disappears once you heat a small section of a steel frame.. That and CONCRETE IS VERY HEAVY, like SUPER CRAZY HEAVY

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:37:53 2011 No.3173772 >>3173762 Lines are crossed. In my post at >>3173724 I am mocking >>3173718 Who is a conspiratard casting doubt on the anon who told us about his structures class. >>3173703

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:38:53 2011 No.3173777

9/11 conspiracy theorists are about as ridiculous as flat earthers to people who actually understand physics.

There is plenty of evidence out there to prove the method of collapse. Maybe you should try reading actual studies instead of watching videos some college kid made.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:38:53 2011 No.3173781

>>3173679
If you look at the layout of the WTC buildings (or if you are a local and already aware):

WTC 7 building was not "right next" to WTC 1 and 2, and in fact a skyscraper was inbetween it and the closest 'large' collapsing skyscraper.

When you look at the Oklahoma city bombing, you see a building that withstood significantly more structural damage than WTC 7 which did not collapse. No steel skyscraper in the history of man before WTC 7 had collapsed "due to office fire" (no jet hit WTC 7 to leak jet fuel into it) or "due to mainline gas fire."

WTC 7 fell at near free fall speed in the exact same manner that comparable buildings fall in controlled demolitions.

Any resistance at from the structure as it collapsed would have made it fall significantly slower than free fall speed because of kinetic energy, instead it just fell on itself with negligible resistance (near free fall).

It's idiotic to just believe that this shit fell for the reasons they said it did when on 9/10/2001 Donald Rumsfield had this to say (and this building was where the documents pertaining to that money spent 'happened' to be located).
(cbs news report)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:38:53 2011 No.3173774 >>3173752 Do you really think the US population would care that much about a blow job if it wasn't for the media blowing it out of proportion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:38:53 2011 No.3173776 >>3173763 >large portion of the population disagrees with it. LOLno.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:39:53 2011 No.3173784 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:39:53 2011 No.3173785 >>3173774 What people care about is irrelevant. The point is that it should have been trivially easy to hide, and it leaked anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:39:53 2011 No.3173789 >>3173759 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4 Hey this guy is a civil engineer and he disagrees, seems like you were really just spewing bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:40:53 2011 No.3173798 Fuck it, this thread is trolls. I'll side with what all the civil engineers in the world agree is the the plausible cause.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:41:53 2011 No.3173803 >>3173776 http://www.wearechange.org/?p=3739 1/3 of 307 million seems like a large portion to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:42:53 2011 No.3173808 >>3173763 >a large portion of the population disagrees with it This is what truthers actually believe. A large portion of the population also believes in intelligent design. Accepting the status quo as fact is a logical fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:42:53 2011 No.3173809 >>3173803 whar video?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:42:53 2011 No.3173811 >>3173785 So do you also believe that we have knowledge of everything the US government does?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:43:53 2011 No.3173816 >>3173781 The building did not fall at freefall speed. And building in control demolitions don't fall at freefall speed. But feel free to keep repeating it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:43:53 2011 No.3173817 >>3173798 you seem to forget the main purpose of /sci/ Galileo galilei was condemned at his time for proving science this is just like that, the people are jsut ignorant

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:43:53 2011 No.3173819 >>3173808 Well in terms of a debate, if a large portion of people disagree with something, then both partys should show evidence to support their claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:43:53 2011 No.3173821 >>3173811 Your fallacy is obvious and pitiful. We don't need to know EVERYTHING. If they can't hide a hotel break-in and a blowjob, they can't hide thousands of people coordinating the demolition of several buildings in secret.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:45:53 2011 No.3173837 >>3173798 >all the civil engineers in the world yeah so basically some people just love hyperbole, in fact, ALL the people in the world that believe in the NIST and 9/11 commission report AGREE that hyperbole is SUPER EFFECTIVE.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:46:53 2011 No.3173839 >>3173821 So 3 things in the history of the US they've been caught doing (even though they seem to have publicized all of them themselves) so we would catch them doing ANYTHING? Why is /sci/ always so quick to insult people?

Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt Sat Jun 4 16:46:53 2011 No.3173842

>>3173781
>> WTC 7 building was not "right next" to WTC 1 and 2, and in fact a skyscraper was inbetween it and the closest 'large' collapsing skyscraper.

WTC7 collapsed because fires burned uncontrollably for seven hours.

>>WTC 7 fell at near free fall speed in the exact same manner that comparable buildings fall in controlled demolitions

No. That video truthers always show of WTC7 collapsing has been edited to look that way. They cut out the first thirty seconds of the collapse.

>>When you look at the Oklahoma city bombing
Oklahoma city bombing was not a fire that burned uncontrollably for seven hours. Also this logic is flawed. After an earthquake some buildings remain standing and some collapse. This doesn't mean the collapsed buildings are the result of a conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:46:53 2011 No.3173851 >>3173817 except in this case it's the government not the churc... well it's just not the church this time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:47:53 2011 No.3173856 >>3173819 Yes, and evidence has been provided. If the population doesn't understand or believe it, that doesn't make it incorrect. It just means that the majority of people are idiots.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:47:53 2011 No.3173857

>>3173837
Then replace hyperbole of truth: What percentage of professional civil engineers believe that any of the WTC collapses were caused by explosives? Just give your best guess, if you don't have a source. Then we'll at least understand your thought process.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:48:53 2011 No.3173861 >>3173842 >This doesn't mean the collapsed buildings are the result of a conspiracy. YES IT DOES HAARP CAUSES EARTHQUAKES US DID JAPAN AND FUKUSHIMA

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:48:53 2011 No.3173862 >>3173856 What? are you even paying attention to the argument? Some kid said that his professor once said that it's possible, and you consider that evidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:48:53 2011 No.3173867 >>3173817 too bad the conspiracy theorists aren't putting forth any testable science...

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:48:53 2011 No.3173869

>>3173842
>No. That video truthers always show of WTC7 collapsing has been edited to look that way. They cut out the first thirty seconds of the collapse.
please link the video of the UNCUT version, I'm somewhat of a truther and I'm willing to be open-minded about your claims

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:49:53 2011 No.3173872 >>3173862 Look up the evidence yourself. As for support from civil engineers: >>3173759

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:49:53 2011 No.3173875 >>3173869 > I'm somewhat of a truther and I'm willing to be open-minded This just means you don't exercise critical thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:49:53 2011 No.3173876 >>3173867 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q There you go, test it yourself

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:50:53 2011 No.3173882 >>3173876 THIS TOTALLY PROVES THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY FOR THOSE BUILDINGS TO HAVE COLLAPSED

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:50:53 2011 No.3173883 >>3173872 I once generalized and then I proved everybody who said I need to be specific wrong once I told them to do their own research and prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:51:53 2011 No.3173885 >>3173872 >making a claim that 100million + people disagree with >burden of proof is on you looking it up yourself even though I state you are wrong without providing any evidence. Kids these days...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:51:53 2011 No.3173887 >>3173883 Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:52:53 2011 No.3173892 >>3173885 Eh, I'll give you a 7/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:53:53 2011 No.3173901 File: 49 KB, 500x375, 1289677899019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hahaha, trolling

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:53:53 2011 No.3173902 >>3173892 Thanks, even though I'm about 90% of the troll posts in this thread.

>>	m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 Sat Jun 4 16:55:53 2011 No.3173915 >>3173887 No, no one has really even far to go want look more like that, but I know what you are saying. Why would even want go as far more like that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:55:53 2011 No.3173923 >>3173819 No. No they don't. The party making the claim that goes against established evidences provides the evidence that debunks the currently held idea.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:56:53 2011 No.3173925
File: 642 KB, 452x633, WTC7-Penthouse.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3173869

Not that anon, and ofc I can't be aresed to search for that video.

However, see your video, and try to locate the thing highlighted in the picture bellow.

That is the North Penthouse. Itself, along with it's brother the South Penthouse, used to house the Air condition units of the building (among other things that is).
As such, they were build as extensions to the main structual beams.

Also: a second or so before the collapse (as stated by the truthers videos), you can see windows braking in a line under the (now non existant) North Penthouse.

It's a sign that the building is allready collapsing. It just happened that the "wrapping" is still up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:57:53 2011 No.3173935 >>3173803 Yeah and 40% of the US population believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. vs. 0.15% for actual life scientists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:00:53 2011 No.3173947 >>3173935 >vs. 0.15% for actual life scientists. That many?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:02:53 2011 No.3173971 >>3173947 Well the study was done in 1995. The percentage has probably plummeted since then. 700/480,000

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:06:53 2011 No.3173994 >>3173925 You're not going to be able to see it from the vantage point of the cameraman.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:08:53 2011 No.3174005

>fire bringing down a building

Thats almost as bad as people who think that the Suns rays can really take down the Golden Gate Bridge if the Earth lost its magnetic field after watching The Core.

Those fires would have to be hot, and I mean HOT as hell to melt the metal structures in the building and make it collapse.
I mean so HOT that the actual building should have just caught on fire entirely and the surrounding street should have looked like the surface of the sun.

Metal doesnt collapse just because of a little fire.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:09:53 2011 No.3174009 >>3173994 Of course you are. It's taller, and further ahead. I can look up for the video in stupid "anti-truther" sites, but I really don't want to go there.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:09:53 2011 No.3174018
File: 294 KB, 500x352, 1287963857928.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3174005
>Those fires would have to be hot, and I mean HOT as hell to melt the metal structures in the building and make it collapse.
>I mean so HOT that the actual building should have just caught on fire entirely and the surrounding street should have looked like the surface of the sun.
>Metal doesnt collapse just because of a little fire.

>mfw people actually think this way, even though you're just trolling

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:11:53 2011 No.3174026

>>3173821
You're an idiot. Not one top secret document has leaked to wikileaks.

Not even ONE bro, just secret classification or below.

Project Manhattan.

The Stealth Bomber.

You're seriously stupid enough to believe that because the president can't hide his blow job, the pentagon can't hide it's top secret war plans and troop positions from the common man?

Are you seriously this stupid that you let the mainstream media (and I don't mean a conspiracy at all, I just mean you think that hollywood politicized bullshit about a blowjob = top secret military info/plans) convince you that the US Government, the biggest secret keepers on the entire planet can't keep a secret?

lol?

The current official conspiracy theory is that 17 arabs did this shit, I find it interesting that you believe a much less well funded much shittier group of arabs could pull this off but much better funded groups with longer histories whom are above the law and entitled to legalized secrecy above scrutiny could not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:12:53 2011 No.3174031 >>3174009 >>3173994 http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Bottom of the page. Not a video, but photos from the exact same video that the OP's .gif is made of. You can clearly see the penthouse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:12:53 2011 No.3174034 >>3174026 >Project Manhattan. >The Stealth Bomber. >implying either was a secret, even while they were still in progress You've got to be shitting me.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:12:53 2011 No.3174035

>>3174018
He's correct, previous skyscrapers with similar structural integrity and composition have burned hotter and for significantly longer periods of time than WTC 7 did, to the point that all that remained was an exoskeleton of the skyscraper structure, which did not collapse or even come close to collapsing.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:13:53 2011 No.3174037

>>3174026
>The current official conspiracy theory is that 17 arabs did this shit, I find it interesting that you believe a much less well funded much shittier group of arabs could pull this off but much better funded groups with longer histories whom are above the law and entitled to legalized secrecy above scrutiny could not.
It's scary to recognize how little control you have, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:15:53 2011 No.3174049 >>3174035 > similar structural integrity and composition Sorry, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:16:53 2011 No.3174052

>>3174034
Stealth Bomber was in use for thirty years before the public discovered its existence.

Since the US government can't keep secrets I challenge you to prove it, leak to us 10 top secret classified documents that are as of currently unreleased.

If you can do that then you can claim that they can't keep a secret, if you can't, and wikileaks can't, then guess what, you are full of shit and you ate up the idea that a president's blowjob that has no military importance would have the same level of secrecy (it would have none, officially, other than the president trying to hide that shit himself and trying to get the bitch who sucked him off not to say anything) as military sensitive and national security sensitive information.

You are an idiot, basically.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:17:53 2011 No.3174057 >>3174052 >Since the US government can't keep secrets I challenge you to prove it, leak to us 10 top secret classified documents that are as of currently unreleased. Your arbitrary standards have no merit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:18:53 2011 No.3174062

>>3174052
>If you can do that then you can claim that they can't keep a secret, if you can't, and wikileaks can't, then guess what, you are full of shit and you ate up the idea that a president's blowjob that has no military importance would have the same level of secrecy (it would have none, officially, other than the president trying to hide that shit himself and trying to get the bitch who sucked him off not to say anything) as military sensitive and national security sensitive information.
They couldn't fake the discovery of WMDs in Iraq either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:18:53 2011 No.3174064 >>3174057 > Fails to deliver on his claim the US can't keep secrets. What a surprise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:18:53 2011 No.3174066 >>3174052 They weren't building the stealth bomber in the middle of one of the world's largest office buildings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:18:53 2011 No.3174059 >>3174037 Scary isn't the word I'd use, but it's enlightening, sure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:19:53 2011 No.3174067 >>3174052 prove that there are classified documents to be released. trololooooo

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:19:53 2011 No.3174068 >>3174062 They didn't need to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:20:53 2011 No.3174071 >>3173586 So it did exactly what it was designed to do? All of these buildings are designed to collapse neatly into place as to not take down the entire New York City skyline.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:21:53 2011 No.3174075 ITT: /sci/ versus the unfalsifiable Give it up, guys

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:21:53 2011 No.3174083 >>3174066 Troll. The Stealth bomber was an excellently kept secret that the public was kept unaware of for 30 years of operational use, let alone its being built.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:22:53 2011 No.3174090 >>3174083 That doesn't help you place explosives against numerous support columns in the middle of an office building where thousands work on a daily basis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:24:53 2011 No.3174096 >>3174083 Which bomber do you mean? The B-2 Spirit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:58:53 2011 No.3174254 sometimes I wonder if 9/11 threads have anything to do with race threads? I mean are truthers stormfronters?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:59:53 2011 No.3174259 >>3174254 They're both diseases of reason, so perhaps. White supremacist groups do have a history of anti-government irrationality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:03:53 2011 No.3174267 >>3174259 you mean diseases of logic, reason and humanity

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:03:53 2011 No.3174269 >>3174090 The support columns were sectioned off from public access. If you were standing next to a column it meant you were in a restricted area that the standard employees of WTC could not access or see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:04:53 2011 No.3174274 >>3174254 "People disagree with me, rather than argue against them in a meaningful way, make assumptions about their character." Stay classy bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:04:53 2011 No.3174278 >>3174269 >hurdurr no evidence of this bullshit anywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:05:53 2011 No.3174279 >>3173564 3/10

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:10:53 2011 No.3174290

>>3174278
Have you ever been in any of the World Trade Center buildings? I have. Feel free to ask other people who have, the support infrastructure was not visible from public areas, and access doors which were lock had to be passed through to get to them for maintenance/work.

Have you ever been in ANY skyscrapers in your life? lol?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:10:53 2011 No.3174293 >>3174267 >>3174259 >>3174267 In a sense truthers might as well be terrorists with how much they hate authority

>>	Jennie Sat Jun 4 18:13:53 2011 No.3174306 File: 128 KB, 721x633, nevar4get.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] never forget the damage on the south side of the building.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:13:53 2011 No.3174308

>>3174293
I don't think the story given to us is the full/true story of what happened, that's not the same as hating authority or thinking the government did it. Your false dilemma is pathetic.

It's not "either the story is 100% true as stated or the gubberment did it!!!!" those are not the only options contrary to what shouting head retards would have you believe.

The story could be partially true with details left out or intentionally obscured, such as the involvement of third parties and explosives in one of the towers, foreign IA are a reasonable possibility which would have more ability to carry out an attack with this level of complexity and foresight required.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:14:53 2011 No.3174314

>>3174308
>It's not "either the story is 100% true as stated or the gubberment did it!!!!" those are not the only options contrary to what shouting head retards would have you believe.
You're committing a subtle strawman fallacy. Do you see that? No one here is explicitly endorsing the complete official story. But saying they were destroyed by explosives is incredibly wrong. It's just not the case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:14:53 2011 No.3174315 File: 25 KB, 450x390, murrahbldg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3174306 Never Forget Oklahoma City Boming. Didn't collapse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:15:53 2011 No.3174320 >>3174315 THIS PROVES EVERYTHING

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:16:53 2011 No.3174326 >>3174290 Have you ever seen what a demolition site looks like?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:16:53 2011 No.3174327 >>3174308 Well the NIST report, for example, is not any less than 99% true if I was forced to give it a percentage. There are no people who are better qualified than NIST, besides NASA they have the nation's top engineers and scientists.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:16:53 2011 No.3174331

>>3174314
We don't know that because they didn't investigate for explosives, and they didn't investigate WTC 7 which actually looks like a controlled demolition with near enough scrutiny.

None of us know whether or not explosives were used in conjunction with the attack, if explosives were used though it still doesn't mean it was our government. I'm not intentionally creating any kind of straw man, you are by equating anyone who disagrees with you as a "terrorist."

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:19:53 2011 No.3174344

>>3174327
This is not true, and you clearly don't know anything about the development of that investigation and the continual complaints from the researchers/investigators that they were being stonewalled by the higher authorities.

You act like this shit was unanimous when in fact there was a lot of controversy involved in their investigation, leading to people resigning and all sorts of crazy shit.

I doubt you can even name with NIST investigators without doing a google search, and so your claim that they are the "top of their field" is absolutely just a blind assumption on your part.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:19:53 2011 No.3174346 >>3174314 it's just like a good christian, eh? you pick and choose what you want to believe

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:19:53 2011 No.3174347 File: 133 KB, 800x600, 800px-GenbakuDome01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3174315 >>3174315 Never forget. Hiroshima Atomic bomb. Didn't collapse. (and before you ask, that was exactly where the bomb exploded)

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:21:53 2011 No.3174355

>>3174314
I seriously doubt anyone has read the entire report and I'd almost venture to say that's a strawman itself. If there is anybody who has read the entire report, or claims to have, I would question their motives exactly. I don't care what side of the debate you fall on, TELL ME ONE SENTENCE out of that whole report that will convince you.

>>	Jennie Sat Jun 4 18:21:53 2011 No.3174356 >>3174315 never forget that building has a different design and is many times shorter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:22:53 2011 No.3174361 >>3174326 It's funny you ask because I've seen a few in person, and because comparison videos are available freely online between WTC 7 and actual controlled demolitions, so you can go see them as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:22:53 2011 No.3174364 >>3174347 ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:23:53 2011 No.3174367 >>3174361 Yeah, the both totally look the same, and that proves it couldn't have been the hugeass planes everyone saw fly into the towers - I should know, I'm an expert from having seen so many Youtube videos.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:23:53 2011 No.3174368 >>3174355 Had to read it. I was in military intelligence and at the time it was required reading. So, erm, what now?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:23:53 2011 No.3174369
File: 70 KB, 480x381, wtc7debris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3174356
I wasn't trying to say that this proved it was a controlled demolition, just that the structural damage was much less severe than on other large structures which did not collapse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:24:53 2011 No.3174371 >>3174355 > TELL ME ONE SENTENCE out of that whole report that will convince you. What? You want a one-sentence summation that would CONVINCE you? You're irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:24:53 2011 No.3174372 >>3174364 But your anecdotal evidence does?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:24:53 2011 No.3174374 >>3174369 Completely different structures. Much shorter ones, in fact, among many other differences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:25:53 2011 No.3174375 >>3174368 right, anyone in military intelligence, let alone someone who admits to being in it, isn't dubious what-so-ever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:25:53 2011 No.3174379 >>3174372 To what anecdotal evidence do you refer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:26:53 2011 No.3174383 >>3174375 This is why your bullshit train of thought is unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:26:53 2011 No.3174385 >>3174371 I think you're irrationally calling me irrational (because you don't have a reason other than disagreeing with me).

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:27:53 2011 No.3174388

>>3174361

If you had, you would have known that the first thing you do in a controlled demolition is to remove all the fucking walls. You only leave the main beams.

You would have also known that there are TENTHS of miles of cable used.

It's not something that can be done without anyone noticing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:27:53 2011 No.3174392 >>3174374 and reinforcement but I'm sure that doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:27:53 2011 No.3174395 >>3174379 The Oklahoma City bombing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:28:53 2011 No.3174396 >>3174385 >(because you don't have a reason other than disagreeing with me). Ah, but I have excellent reasons for disagreeing with you, and you have a clear lack of reason for your position.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:28:53 2011 No.3174400 will you truthers quit making racism threads

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:29:53 2011 No.3174404 >>3174396 ok irrational person, give me the reason.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:30:53 2011 No.3174412

>>3174375

>admits

What is there to admit? I read reports, compiled documents and briefed COs. I transferred there from the Infantry and only did it because of the pay rise.

No HURR SECRET TOP SECRET AREA 51 bollocks. I'm not fucking James Bond. I got injured in a firefight and decided I wouldn't mind a comfy desk job. HUMINT used terrorism cases as case studies, it's not that complex to get your head around.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:33:53 2011 No.3174425

>>3174404
The overwhelming majority of the world's experts in civil engineering and demolitions agree that it wasn't a demolition.

The degree of conspiracy and coverup required in incredibly infeasible, and has a very poor risk/reward analysis. Also there's a very poor history for such thing remaining a secret for one's lifetime.

There is clear evidence witnessed by many for a very clean explanation: Terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings. They had the means, motive and opportunity, and even a history of attacking the WTC itself.

I mean, this is just Bayesian stuff here. What is the most reasonable explanation?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:38:53 2011 No.3174442

You know why I'm not a truther?? Even if the government, parts of the government, wealthy bankers, international business owners or some other high-profile person with a lot of resources did use controlled demolitions and terrorism theatrics to covertly destroy the world trade towers and take out saddam and everybody did know about it NOBODY WOULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!! Everybody is a piece of shit that only cares about their own life and that just adds to the megalomaniacal genius of the supposed perps. It's just like chess -- either Osama is some lone wack job who tried to play for scraps (a few thousand dead is pretty fucking worthless considering people in the past have done a LOT MORE with LESS) or ALL OF YOU FAGGOTS are yelling at _shadows_ who are infinitely out of your league

so yeah... Everybody is a spoiled piece of shit and it doesn't take a 9/11 to see that.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:38:53 2011 No.3174444

Surely the truth is somewhere in the middle?

I believe that Al-Qaeda organized the hijackings and crashing the planes into the WTC buildings, but a secret conspiracy high in the American government opportunistically seized on that to quickly set up demolition charges so the buildings would fall.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:40:53 2011 No.3174459

>>3174425
No matter who did it it was a conspiracy, it's hard to say how much "coverup" would be required.

How much was required for Al Qaeda if they were solely responsible? Why do you assume that if it wasn't Al Qaeda, it's required that it be the US Government? It could easily be a foreign intelligence agency in which case the amount of "coverup" wouldn't need to be as massive as you imply. The hardest part would be getting people inside the tower before the event to plant the place the nano thermite in WTC 7, which would be difficult but possible.

I don't get this belief that if it was al qaeda, somehow it's not still a conspiracy. No matter who it was a group got together, made a conspiracy to do this shit, and then pulled it off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:41:53 2011 No.3174462 >>3174442 and you know it pays off more to be a nationalist rather than a sociopath, so if you are going to get all Machiavellian then you might as well get off 4chan now and climb the "corporate food chain"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:42:53 2011 No.3174467 >>3174425 Also, "poor risk reward" is significantly up for debate. Various organization's had their stock share values skyrocket by multiple thousand percentage points as a direct result of these events, and the private security industry is booming.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:44:53 2011 No.3174473 I don't believe there was ANY conspiracy involved. It's just the kind of thing bored aviation-enthusiast muslims who realize they have box-cutters in their pockets decide to do on the spur of the moment sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:44:53 2011 No.3174474 once again /sci/ proves it's dumber than the troofers

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sat Jun 4 18:44:53 2011 No.3174477 >Age old WTC-7 troll >+ 173 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. never change /sci/

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sat Jun 4 18:46:53 2011 No.3174490 >>3174444 You've gotta be shitting me.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:46:53 2011 No.3174491

>>3174444
here's the middle ground: American dollars were used to give Osama and his cronnies their training. Either side you're own American government is to be blamed on some level unless you feel that it was within reason and even forgivable that 'we' did so in order to fight off Soviet terrorism, in which case, you could still be democratic bigot but that's an argument in another place which you probably don't give a real shit about.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:48:53 2011 No.3174502

The "hurr durr it was rigged" people don't seem to realize how fucking hard it would be to rig an entire building with enough small explosive charges to bring down the entire structure in a way that no fire could, while at the same time NEVER being discovered by ANYONE who works in the offices or does the maintainance on the building itself, and THEN silencing EVERY worker and planner who was involved.

I think it was a fucking Cracked article that pointed this out best.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:48:53 2011 No.3174506 >>3174477 >>3174490 I haven't seen you make a single thread and besides your a sub-troll faggot always talking with self-righteousness everywhere you go.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:49:53 2011 No.3174512

>>3174490
>it's not what an authority figure on the teevee told me! therefore it's all bullshit!
sometimes I can't wait for death so I don't have to spend time on this planet with all the rest of the tards
jesus tiddy fucking christ

DUNNAN KROOOOGAR effect all up in this bish

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:49:53 2011 No.3174513 >>3174467 Being found out means getting tried and executed. Do the math.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:50:53 2011 No.3174517 >>3174512 see >>3174425

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:50:53 2011 No.3174518 Because a gas fire can melt and destroy a fucking CONCRETE bridge but can't bring down a steel building? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emV6wVxOTYQ What are truther's smoking?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:51:53 2011 No.3174526

>>3174459
> It could easily be a foreign intelligence agency in which case the amount of "coverup" wouldn't need to be as massive as you imply.
That's even MORE ridiculous. Are you arguing for planes or bombs here? Because if it's bombs, there's really nothing to say. It's a hell of a lot harder for Mossad to rig up the WTC to blow than the US government, and I'm not even a truther.

ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sat Jun 4 18:52:53 2011 No.3174534

>>3174491
As a rule, the CIA worked with native Afghan fighter groups. They didn't work with foreign groups like Osama's. But to be sure, Al Qaeda benefited from the training and equipment that went into Afghanistan. Sometimes your ally becomes your enemy. Shit happens.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:52:53 2011 No.3174535

>>3174518
>What are truther's smoking?
Irrational hatred for authority figures. That and a desire to believe that everything is under human control. Better an evil power you know and live with than being left at the mercy of an impersonal, dispassionate universe that doesn't care about you at all.

ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sat Jun 4 18:53:53 2011 No.3174539

>>3174502
They would also have to place the charges on the exact floors the planes crashed into, since that's where the collapse began. That would have been literally impossible. No pilot could figure out the exact right floor to crash into.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:53:53 2011 No.3174540 >>3174347 LOL wtc 7 was like 50 fucking stories and over 9000 times heavier than this jap building.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:00:53 2011 No.3174572

>>3174534
ok so maybe not exactly forgivable but easily dismissed and foreign groups nothing like Osama's crazy taliban-alqaeda-radical-jihadist-muslim-islamist -- gotcha.

I'm really impressed by some people who can make the complex tribalisms going on in Afghanistan so easy to understand.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:01:53 2011 No.3174575
File: 77 KB, 500x493, towerplacement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3174540
Hey let's look at reality and where WTC 7 was compared to other skyscrapers that did not collapse.

Oh hey what a strange coincidence that the towers 6 and 5 which were in between WTC 7 and the main towers, and the Verizon and Post office buildings directly next to WTC 7 were just fine, but somehow WTC 7 sustained so much more damage than these other structures that it collapsed due to fire which had never happened to a skyscraper in human history before this event.

Let's ignore the reality of WHERE WTC 7 was in relation to the main towers, lol, and pretend it was right next to them!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:02:53 2011 No.3174580 >>3174575 Stop being a jackass. There are clear photos of the structural damage to WTC 7. You can't argue about the improbability of things that clearly happened.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:02:53 2011 No.3174581 >>3174572 oh and how they also simplify CIA operations too. That stuff is so sophisticated and cool I wish I could comprehend it and command authority with how lightly I can discuss it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:03:53 2011 No.3174582

The WTC buildings which collapsed were all designed to be lowered into the ground Tokyo-3 style in case of an attack.

The system was triggered, but it stuck, so not only did they not duck the incoming aircraft, but when they came unstuck, they collapsed.

The coverup is just to avoid embarassment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:04:53 2011 No.3174592 >>3174582 I laughed. And in a Truther thread, no less.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:06:53 2011 No.3174599 >>3174575 Dude, CNN reported on the DAY OF the attack that WTC7 had a BIG MOTHERFUCKING HOLE IN IT and that it was astonishing the thing could remain standing. Apparently you think CNN was in on the whole conspiracy too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:07:53 2011 No.3174601 >>3174540 That "jap" building was hit by an atomic bomb, producing about 50 TeraJoules of energy. But missed the point. It was an anecdotal reply to a guy that say "Oklahoma city building didn't collapse!" Better luck next time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:08:53 2011 No.3174603 >>3174599 >Apparently you think CNN was in on the whole conspiracy too. Of course.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:09:53 2011 No.3174607

The only copy of the genuine long-form birth certificate for Obama was stored in secure deposit box in WTC 7.

That's why he had to stall for so long until a forgery could be produced. When this forgery is proven, it will be the end for the Democratic Party.

Wheels in wheels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:09:53 2011 No.3174608 >>3174540 plus the bomb was detonated above the ground, like 1km or something

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:09:53 2011 No.3174609 >>3174575 You are joking right? All of the WTC budings were destroyed. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. All of them As a matter of fact, WTC 6 was 80% burred in debris.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:11:53 2011 No.3174618 >>3174608 How far away from ground zero is the building?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:11:53 2011 No.3174620
File: 282 KB, 1024x819, zz911wtc6craterwestair.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3174580
No one disputes that there was structural damage to it, there was just more structural damage to WTC 6 which did not collapse and was closer to the actual main buildings, and the photographs of structural damage to WTC 7 show non threatening amounts of damage which shouldn't have caused a collapse (the previous WTC bombing in the basement did more damage to that tower, OK City Bombing, etcetera).

The structural damage to WTC 7 does not justify a collapse, and is blatantly only given minimal importance in the 9/11 commission/NIST report as such. Instead, fire is the primary culprit, and we've already discussed how this was the first skyscraper in human history to collapse due to it.

Pic related is the structural damage that the closer skyscraper, WTC 6 received.

Feel free to try and post any picture whatsoever that shows damage comprable to this on WTC7, which had damage in one corner and was otherwise mostly very well in tact.

WTC 6 did not collapse, and as you see in the previous diagram was in front of WTC 7 in relation to the main towers.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:12:53 2011 No.3174628
File: 185 KB, 375x500, 1306592028737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

hey op truther fag, do you have a master in any kind of engineering? oh, you don't have one?
are you a blaster or have experience with explosives?
you are way out of your league, boy

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:13:53 2011 No.3174632

>>3174599
It's more likely that just BBC is an inside terrorist because they reported the WTC7 falling before it did and then lacked the journalistic integrity to admit that they had aired a mistake, like what most other sane news companies do when they print or report errors -- no they didn't admit to it at any time, they just had technical difficulties cut off the reporter because it was a very busy day and they didn't want to cause a panic with all the people by admitting to the error. Meh, business is business. I just wish I knew why they had involvement with inside corruption but I'm pretty sure it was for good reasons that are hard to explain.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:13:53 2011 No.3174637

>>3174620
>The structural damage to WTC 7 does not justify a collapse, and is blatantly only given minimal importance in the 9/11 commission/NIST report as such. Instead, fire is the primary culprit, and we've already discussed how this was the first skyscraper in human history to collapse due to it.
I agree, generally. WTC 7 probably wouldn't have collapsed without the uncontrolled fires.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:14:53 2011 No.3174641 >>3174628 I have a masters in debunking and that's not debunking -- you have now been debunked

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:15:53 2011 No.3174645

>>3174603
While that's probably not the case, CNN is well known for employing US Army Psyops operatives over the years.

It was caught in 2000, 2004, and again in 2010. Each time if had no knowledge that they were working for them.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=FAIR+cnn+psyops&aq=f&aqi=&a
mp;aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a91b69f6bd0a7737&biw=1440&bi
h=650

The more you know!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:15:53 2011 No.3174648 >>3174620 WTC 6 was a grand total of 8 stories tall. You keep referring to it as "skyscraper" The defence rests.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:17:53 2011 No.3174657 >>3174648 k good please leave the thread lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:21:53 2011 No.3174682 >>3174657 Why? "lol".

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:21:53 2011 No.3174684

NBC, CBS and ABC all work for the illuminaty their paychecks are filtered through Halliburton IMF banks that are fun by decendents of orothchild families who also hired Osama, think about it -- wouldn't using real planes be more work than what you would have to do if you just paid the source directly instead of making up one? Sadam is also still alive in Tibet waiting in an old Nazi base-camp bombshelter, if you watch hollywood movies you'll see the illuminati hints.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:24:53 2011 No.3174695 >>3174684 > Troll tries to derail actual discussion by making up retarded hyperboles that 99% of people who doubt the 9/11 commission report's story AND the people who believe it both agree is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:27:53 2011 No.3174717 >>3174645 i have seen with my own eyes cnn crew giving bribe to some bummers to act as albanian refugees in yugoslavia bombing in 1999. i could write 10 pages of text of media false information that happened there

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:29:53 2011 No.3174729 >>3174717 >. i could write 10 pages of text of media false information that happened there Yeah, you sound legit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:32:53 2011 No.3174746

>>3174695
No I don't take any sides on the 9/11 incident. It is only what had to be done by the old order of the illuminati who make regular sacrifices to the reptilian "gods" (jot really gods justa really strong line of alien families from SIRIUS the DOG STAR, god spelled backwards). It is ridiculous how much symbolism is out there. The all seeing eye on our dollar bill not only tells you about the all-seeing ones but it also graphically details the 9/11 event. Cant you see that arguing about who is right or wrong is so silly? Tehse events are on a cosmological scale that our egos are not ready to understand in the lifetime. Satan, Jesus and Lucifer's story can't even compare to the level of seriousness of karmatic sacrifice we are dealing with today! I know eventually truthers will give up their senseless fights and come to eventually serve a higher purpose which will help all the ignorant live together because deep-down inside that is what they really want and unintentionally fail at coing currently.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:33:53 2011 No.3174748 >>3174729 u mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:35:53 2011 No.3174756 >>3174748 nah, he jelly and troll'n

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:36:53 2011 No.3174760 >>3174746 >No I don't take any sides on the 9/11 incident This is not something to be proud of.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:39:53 2011 No.3174774 >>3174607 HOLY SHIT. EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE NOW. Obama traveled back in time and planted nanothermite. Prove me wrong. Wake up sheeple. Obama is a time traveling kenyan born mooslim terrorist. I fucking knew fox news was right all along.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:40:53 2011 No.3174783

>>3174760
taking sides is for people that want to fight, havent you noticed that when all of you take sides you are only fracturing things farther? It's not as simple as being right and fighting wrong because whenever you create a right you also write a wrong and wrong the actual right which continues to FRACTally creat other things which are not the actual right but only fuel for the fight.

In a world of eye for an eye everybody is blind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:42:53 2011 No.3174794 >>3174783 just look at all the racism threads that get created in the heat of this debate? It's not like religion debate in that people are both trying to find the truth because here people are just trying to probve each-other wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:44:53 2011 No.3174799 >>3174783 I don't take sides about whether the earth is round, flat, or hollow. That would only be dividing people. 'Cause if I have to choose between truth and peace, hey, choose peace amirite? Nothing wrong with comfortable delusions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:44:53 2011 No.3174802 >>3174774 I'm not sure if you are serious but that is pretty close to the truth my friend. You might want to take yourself more seriously if you are only joking because this is not something to take lightly

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:45:53 2011 No.3174805 >>3174802 No, I am dead serious. What about the lizard people? Is Obama a lizard? gasp ARE ALL MUSLIMS LIZARDS?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:45:53 2011 No.3174808 >>3174799 and why does the shape of the earth really matter if you can't put your hands all the way around it to show it love?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:45:53 2011 No.3174812 >>3174808 You can't hug your children with nuclear arms! Fuck a tree for peace!

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:47:53 2011 No.3174824

>>3174347

If that building survived a direct hit with a nuclear bomb there is no fucking way WTC7 could've been brought down by a fire or even with conventional explosives. We're talking several orders of magnitude difference here. Even if the explosives were placed on precisely the right spot they couldn't have done more structural damage then a fucking nuke.

Can I get a volunteer to take a Geigen counter to the WTC monument?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:48:53 2011 No.3174830

>>3174812
see now you are just being factitious because I'm showing you love and you hate love but love hate and don't care what I'm saying because you only want to be right, not loving. Maybe I'm failing in conveying that love but communication is a 2 way street my friend

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:50:53 2011 No.3174842 >>3174812 you know nuclear arms and the earth are bigger than you are but yet all you have is hate for these things which are not the same as you or even relevant to your personal struggles or emotional bonds

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 19:53:53 2011 No.3174852 >>3174808 I can't put my arms all the way around your mom but I still show her love.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:08:53 2011 No.3174923 >>3174852 Why are you being offensive? Attitudes like that reflect a love of killing and death.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:15:53 2011 No.3174969 >>3174347 >The detonation happened at an altitude of 1,968 feet (600 m). >FAGGOT

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:19:53 2011 No.3174990 >>3174923 people just enjoy being fashionably hateful and this is this practicing ground. I wouldn't make too much of it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:24:53 2011 No.3175036
File: 39 KB, 600x600, 816223-gentlemen_bender_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Obviously not going to read the thread, but just my two cents:

Firstly I know nothing of the schematics of the building, but, as a final year civil engineering student, i find it hard to believe a localised impact such as a plane, as well as a localised increase in temperature could cause total failure and collapse of a building.

these skyscrapers have foundations that can go hundreds of meters below ground, and are strictly designed to withstand fires and earthquakes.

also, obviously don't really give enough of a fuck to look into any of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:27:53 2011 No.3175049 >>3175036 What a back-handed truther comment, you guys are scum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:34:53 2011 No.3175097 >>3175049 >>3175049 Don't give me that "truther" bullshit. I don't think it was some government conspiracy, I just said - as someone who is actually in a position to comment - I find it hard to believe, as do most. Run along now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:40:53 2011 No.3175152 >>3175097 >as do most I doubt your unaccredited opinions count as the official consensus of recognized engineers

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:52:53 2011 No.3175253 >>3175152 >>3175152 >>3175152 derp. if you asked any qualified structural engineer BEFORE 9/11, if they thought it would cause total failure, I guarantee none of them would agree.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 20:54:53 2011 No.3175269

the towers were designed so that the outside of the tower was kept from buckling outwards by its connection to each floor. The floors each weighed 4600 tons, and were over-engineered to support an additional 1300 tons. It was the weight of the rubble from floors above that caused it to collapse.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 21:01:53 2011 No.3175296

>>3175269
The fire provided the energy needed to dislodge additional rubble from the floors above, and to weaken the hinges by which the floor was held onto the outer skin. It was the building's unique "tube" construction that proved to be it's downfall (no pun intended)

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 21:58:53 2011 No.3175535
File: 83 KB, 687x600, 687px-John_Mccain_Edward_Egan_Barack_Obama_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3175036
Hmmm, I'll save you some time if you are interested but I find it fascinating how the youngins might accept a demo job but not even give a fuck? lol, It's only because you were not around before and therefore cannot appreciate the change in climate, for the worse - whatever, you will be living it, might as well open your eyes.
Cardinal Edward Egan, the Arch Bishop of NY and most powerful man in America at the time, got the go ahead from the Jesuit council in Rome, he simply used his many Jesuit Generals like Anthony Zinni, intelligence contacts like Jesuit trained George Tenet, an entire media owned by Rome including the so called alternative to of course point towards Israel and the Mossad when the inevitable questions came...
So now you have 2 middle east crusades and an inquisition. Vietnam btw was a crusade against Buddhism orchestrated by then Cardinal Spellman through the Gulf of Tonkin false flag- it was known as Spelly's war.
History repeating so quickly is a scary thing. lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:38:53 2011 No.3175670 let's have another one of these threads again soon anon! Remember 'they' don't want you to have fun.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:43:53 2011 No.3175685 just shut up and enjoy the big shiny boots so black and sexy you love the marching men in columns you naughty thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:43:53 2011 No.3175687 >>3175253 Oh yay, something else that's not falsifiable! You truther guys are the best.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:45:53 2011 No.3175691 >>3175685 more attention here

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:46:53 2011 No.3175696

>>3173789

Can someone please comment on this video it's a little over my head.

So basically he builds a box that attaches to steel pillars that has thermite in and then the thermite melts the steel. But in buildings the steel aren't exposed/ how would that work?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 22:51:53 2011 No.3175706

Let's assume that the discussion is over and you've convinced us that WTC7 was indeed brought down by a controlled demolition.
Then what? /sci/ forms a marching band and goes tooting through the streets?
If the US government can pull off such a thing flawlessly today - the stealthy detonation of a building that few believe and are ridiculed for - the only response is to crawl into a hole and hide, and even that didn't work for Saddam. If you are right, advertising this information and actually convincing people of it is putting yours and others' lives in grave danger from your government.
/paranoid
So either way, you're delusional, or you're a massive faggot.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Sun Jun 5 00:43:53 2011 No.3176046 >>3173666 i would like to reiterate this point because it was made by satan

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 00:53:53 2011 No.3176076

So what's the conspiracy's reasoning for why WTC7 was purposely destroyed? If the idea for "bringing down" the WTC towers was to have some big event to make the American people support a big war and losing their civil liberties, was it really necessary to bring down the comparatively small WTC7 as a cherry on top of the dessert of manipulating public will?

Sometimes I hear that WTC7 was a base of operations for government agencies and could have been a base for carrying out the conspiracy. But if they were wanting to remove the evidence, it seems like a really sloppy way to go about it by just saying "let's blow it all up." Rubble's still around, bits of paper floating through the air all over that would be impossible to recover, and you've got firefighters and first responders walking all over the area where you're trying to hide your conspiracy HQ. Doesn't sound like the method of choice for the conspirators who supposedly could plant their explosives without anyone seeing.

I honestly want to know what the conspiracy theorists think was the reason why WTC7 was brought down. It's not enough to merely say "oh here are holes in the official story" any more than mentioning a flaw in evolution suddenly means that God did it all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:02:53 2011 No.3176102 >>3176076 SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISION

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:05:53 2011 No.3176106 >>3173564 it collapsed, OP, because ur fat fuck of a mother took a squat on the top floor shitter

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:14:53 2011 No.3176134 >>3176102 I don't know anything but I know that has nothing to do with with the TARPs and stuff lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:25:53 2011 No.3176162 2+2=5

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:34:53 2011 No.3176192

>>3173564

>>3176076

the owner had been trying to get permits to pull his buildings for years - the city wouldn't give them to him (have you seen the pictures of the dust raised when they fell? - that's why the city wouldn't give him the permit.) the cityh DID say it wouldlet him dismantel the buildings so as to prevent dust.

the towers were 'hit' when they should have been full of workers. only about three thousand people got killed/hurt in two buildings meant to hold almost 75,000. the buildings have always been a red-herring, they were built in the wrong place - no traffic. need you guess why there weren't more lives lost from the towers? there was very low occupancy. win-win by all parties. dickhead got his buildings knocked down and chainey got his false flag (which precipitated TRILLIONS in revenue for a company he still "owned". (haliburton)

and the airplanes? complete fabrication. no one riding airplanes that day died.

now. here's the fun part. if ANY part of the entire september 11th 'saga' is fake, then the whole thing is fake, right? to include the recent death of some myth named osama bin laden (who, by the way, the day of the tower incident proclaimed he D
IDN'T do it (just once on national tv - strange that a terrorist would deny doing such a cool terrorist deed, wouldn't you say?)

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:35:53 2011 No.3176196

>>3173564

so, it any part is fake - it's all fake, right? here's the 'fun' part... you're going to tell me that some guys that have never before flown the type of aircraft they were purported to fly were able to crash-dive that big old jet into the only unpopulated wall of the most heavily guarded building on the face of this planet? (the pentagon, in case you're a little unsure of the 'facts').

please... tell me another wonderful bedtime story. that would have been harder to do than landing the aircraft - after all, it wasn't a video game...

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:36:53 2011 No.3176197

>>3173564

whenever in doubt, figure out who made the money. figure out why they made it. there are a handful of people who know what happened that day as most of the 'little guys' have mysteriously passed away. the little brown turd in the big house is the latest to benefit from all this who-haw. he killed the myth (seen the body? of course not...).

it's all about the benjamins. the american people have been hoodwinked yet again.

remember kids, when reality suggests that the story is bullshit, then the story is usually bullshit.

oh, and soon, one of the old guys involved will, on his death bed, confess. i guess he's worried about his lousy soul after all. what a crock of shit!

have fun kiddies. remember, when you want to figure out why certain world events happen, follow the money...

quit being sheep.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:37:53 2011 No.3176202

>>3176076
Why did they bring down WTC 7? They brought down the entire WTC complex, 5 or 6 buildings in all, every single one of them. Strangely, no building went down that day unless it was a WTC building.
2 planes, 5 buildings, it was trick shot. Fact of the matter is the complex was getting old, tenancy was plummeting and they were filled with asbestos. Controlled Demo Inc. took a look and said it couldn't be done safely unless the entire city was evacuated for days so they got the cleanup contract and the job was left to the military black ops gang. This gang got spiritual counseling directly from the Vatican in preparation for the mass murder, for the glory of God, the ends justify the means.
>>3175706
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance, when a Catholic priest rapes an alter boy the boy suffers for the rest of his life from it, some of these boys turn into Jesuit soldiers filling their host nations military ranks and assuming powerful positions . Be grateful you might overcome this mental disorder and see the reality of the situation, you could have easily been some programmed drone blowing up buildings in your own country and killing people you didn't even know - or shooting towel heads you don't know in a foreign land - its all the same really.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:38:53 2011 No.3176203 yes they FUCKING ADDMITTED TO BRING THE FUCKING BUILDING BECOUSE OF DAMAGE. FROM THE TWIN TOWERS FALLING DOWN. YOU FUCKING TIN HATS NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRIAGHT.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:45:53 2011 No.3176231 >>3176203 if they admitted that, why did they have the explosives in place? it takes days to wire a building to fall like that when pulled??? don't be so mad. it ain't the only lie your government has told you...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 01:55:53 2011 No.3176262 >>3176202 The fuck are you talking about?

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 01:58:53 2011 No.3176267 >>3176202 The hilton went down, several others went down... pretty much everything in the area where the buildings fell. It's no fucking mystery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 02:01:53 2011 No.3176273 >>3173642 plausible. why did all the jews that worked at the wtc all take an off day that day.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 02:03:53 2011 No.3176280 >>3176273 They didn't, retardo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 02:55:53 2011 No.3176415 >>3176267 >i'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about i agree bro, you should kill yourself.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 03:10:53 2011 No.3176460

I've seen a few posts in this thread that say WTC 7 didn't fall at free fall speed. Could someone provide links to this? This is not a rhetorical question. The free fall speed of collapse of WTC 7 is the last question I have yet been able to find a good explanation for. It's the last piece of the puzzle I need to understand 9/11 so if anyone has the info please link.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 03:19:53 2011 No.3176501 >>3176460 http://tinyurl.com/2w8oss done.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 03:56:53 2011 No.3176617

A bunch of debri carved a hole in one of the sides of the building, there are pictures of this that "truthers" OMIT.

The fire was also a lot larger than the pictures the 'truthers" choose - there are pictures of smoke coming out of nearly every floor - pictures that "truthers" OMIT.

Also, the building did not fall in a completely uniform fashion - it only appears to from the angles that the "truthers" choose. Other angles show more of an awkwardness in its collapse - which "truthers" OMIT.

I'm so over and resentful of the conspiracy scene after having it make me go goober over bullshit for a few years, it ain't even funny.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 04:57:53 2011 No.3176798
File: 62 KB, 333x250, Falling%20Dominos%20Fotolia_9449038_Subscription_L[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3173564
> No plane hit this building.
> There [isn't] ONE good [scientific] [explanation] [for] why this building collapsed.
Nobody pushed the middle dominoes. There's absolutely no reason for them to fall over. You can't explain that. Never a miscommunication.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 04:59:53 2011 No.3176802 Guys guys guys guys Did you know the WTC fell faster than gravity allows for bodies in free fall? You can't explain that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:02:53 2011 No.3176810 >>3176802 Obviously a giant invisible dragon that breathes smokeless heatless fire pushed it down. Everything else is a socialist liberalist unamerican commie treason conspiracy against the christian nation.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 05:03:53 2011 No.3176814 >>3176460 I would expect any huge collapsing steel skeleton building to fall within 1 or 2 percent of the acceleration of gravity. Wouldn't you? It will only slow when the debris density gets high enough to provide serious resistance.

ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 05:09:53 2011 No.3176830

>>3176802
Hahaha, you believe in the gravitational constant? The CIA WANTS you to believe in the gravitational constant. During the Afghan war the CIA PAID the gravitational constant to pretend to be smaller than it actually was, and the gravitational constant doesn't actually EXIST; it's really just the CIA fooling you into thinking there's GRAVITY. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!1

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:11:53 2011 No.3176835

>>3176810
>>3176802

Your mocking tone suggests you know the answers to these question of why the building fell at free fall speed. I don't know the reason. And whenever I ask I get mocked instead of an answer. I'm not a "truther" that you pejoratively refer to. I do not have preconceived notions. This is a question I have been wanting someone to answer for a long time. Everyone else seems to know the answer to this question. They must know the answer if they are so confident to insult me in reply.

To restate the question more clearly. If a structure is in the process of collapsing the gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy as well as dissipative energy (heat) that results from breaking the building's structural members.

If a structure is collapsing at free fall speed it is implied that no gravitational potential energy is being converted into dissipative energy. There are two possibilities. Either the energy needed to dismember the structure is negligable compared to the gravitational potential of the building or the dissipative energy is coming from some other source. That is, the chemical potential of the structure has a contribution from a source other than gravity alone.

If the answer is the former then it should be trivial to provide an order of mangitude estimate of the energy to dismember the structure and compare it to the gravitational potential of the structure. By doing this you have an answer to this question and we could say case closed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:12:53 2011 No.3176837 >>3176830 >hey everyone i'm a fucking idiot who doesn't realize my opinion is shit and isn't any more credible than that or random bum on the street. cool story bro.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:14:53 2011 No.3176839

>>3176835
>Your mocking tone suggests you know the answers to these question of why the building fell at free fall speed

Nope. The assertion is that it fell FASTER than free fall allows. Which is impossible unless the top of the building is mounted with rocket boosters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:14:53 2011 No.3176840 >>3176837 But he's a philosopher!

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 05:15:53 2011 No.3176842 >>3176840 fo realz

>>	tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc Sun Jun 5 05:17:53 2011 No.3176850 What if the collapse of the other buildings created a vacuum which sucked it down faster than it would have normally fell?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:18:53 2011 No.3176852 >>3176839 I noticed that. But, I regarded it as a hyperbolic statement to increase the effect of the mockery, as I have never seen anyone claim the structure fell faster than free fall speed.

>>	Sage Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:19:53 2011 No.3176855 File: 311 KB, 584x600, ow lawd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm not even trying

ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 05:20:53 2011 No.3176859

>>3176835
It's not even that simple. They are claiming that only in the middle part of the fall did the building accelerate faster than the acceleration due to gravity. So you can't just total the deformative energy expended, but only such energy expended during that portion of the fall. I'm not sure how you would go about doing that, but for a massive building that is mostly empty space, I would expect it to be falling at about g until it got more compressed. If you can make an estimate for the energy of compression during the empty phase, and an estimate of the precision of your measurement of the building's acceleration during that phase, then you have something to go on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:21:53 2011 No.3176860 >>3176852 >I have never seen anyone claim the structure fell faster than free fall speed. Really? I've found it to be a recurring theme in truther bullshit.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sun Jun 5 05:22:53 2011 No.3176865 >>3176852 The first video I found on youtube measures the acceleration at 9.88 m/s^2... based on the window sizes. Of course the timing of the video probably isn't even precise enough to get closer than a few percent.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sun Jun 5 05:25:53 2011 No.3176870 >>3176860 Then they're stupider than I give them credit for. Conservation of momentum. The only way that makes any sense at all is if large bits of building went flying up at very high speeds.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 05:37:53 2011 No.3176895

>>3176852
hes mocking indirectly because you're dealing with complex situations and a vast majority of uneducated nuts who allow themselves to agree with insane arguments as long as it isn't the "official" or otherwise less entertaining explanation. also he's an asshole, but looking at pictures and videos on youtube does not make anyone an expert, and approaching 9/11 with a conspiracy mentality is ridiculous. op was a troll ("good explanation," "ONLY WAY," "puppets") either way, so everyone loses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 06:16:53 2011 No.3176962 File: 44 KB, 446x400, 128954773270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3176895 >He actually believes what his saying with conviction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 07:28:53 2011 No.3177126 Guys, this was delt with a few weeks ago, the guy who owned the building decided to bring the building down in a controlled way as it damaged, watched this. http://www .youtube. com/watch?v=UUdhdTXHcn4&feature=related.

>>	sage Anonymous Sun Jun 5 07:44:53 2011 No.3177169 >>poor trolling attempt >>288 posts and 17 image replies omitted Why doesn't this ever die? He didn't even slowly ramp up the trolling...

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 09:36:53 2011 No.3177474
File: 142 KB, 441x551, BuckwheatSurprised.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3176870

n ot true - the 'jet' weakened one side of the structure which should have resulted in it's toppling instead of falling into it's footprint.

your argument is invalid because it shlould never have developed downward momentum in the first place - the building above the "cut" should have toppled over and tghe building below the cut should have been relatively intactg (though it may have been pulled over in it's entirety).

your sillyh governmentg-supported-fabrications truly have no sway in the place we like to call the real world.

and to assume TWO buildings would do exactly the same thing...

the look on my face!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 09:48:53 2011 No.3177512 >>3177474 You are assuming that millions of tons of concrete, steal, and cable is a rigid body.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:02:53 2011 No.3177548

>>3173781
>The area of the Pentagon that was hit the next day just so happened to be the accounting section working to account for the "missing" funds.

>So many convenient coincidences make 9/11 look like a firesale. I am heartbroken. I had faith in human institutions.

wat

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:17:53 2011 No.3177603 >>3177548 Building 7 was where the Securities & Exchange Commission was housed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:42:53 2011 No.3177684 >>3177512 it is a rigid body - how else can it stand up like it does... silly rabbit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:44:53 2011 No.3177691 >>3177512 go play with building blocks. pull out a corner. do the rest of the blocks fall into their own footprint? i think not, tim...

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:48:53 2011 No.3177705

lol lol

the easiest thing to do would have been to design the building so that in case of massive failure in integrity the building would collapse in its own footprint.
that would have been awesome but when the building was built that was not the concern.

lol lol lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:52:53 2011 No.3177729 This thread gave me full blown schizophrenia.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 10:59:53 2011 No.3177758

>>3177705

>>the easiest thing to do would have been to design the building ...

you are kidding, right? it's either that or you know exactly zero about physics (the laws thereof) or engineering.

why would you do that? under any circumstance, why would you design a building to fail ina specific way?

you've been drinking at the government kool aid trough too long. good luck with that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 11:12:53 2011 No.3177811 >>3173789 Why is everyone ignoring this video?

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 11:21:53 2011 No.3177843

>>3177811

the same reason they ignore that the pentagon, the most heavily guarded building in the world, was hit "by guys who had never flown a jet before" - about the same deifficulty as a carrier landing.

ask the navy guys how easy is it to hit the deck of a carrier.

and the navy guyhs have lots of practice on the jet they're flying.

the whole "story" is a frabrication by a small group of guys who made a bunch (an astronomical amount) of money off this whole thing - and who are still making the dollars as fast as they can roll in.

when the guy who supposedly did it, denied it (played ONCE on TV) when in fact he should have laughed and danced about pulling it off, then something is wrong with this fish tale from all angles.

hit the pentagon in an unused section.

buildings pre wired for demolition.

cover story with so many holes that little kids don't believe it.

yeah, i'm buying the whole thing too. i think all the news sources are unbiased.

oh, and building seven was reported demolished about three minutes before it happened. interesting, huh

the whole thing reeks, and it reeks of big money.

Anonymous Sun Jun 5 15:12:53 2011 No.3179067

>>3177729

>>3177729

Hahaha. I always love to hear when sci threads give people mental disorders. Here's some more icing on the cake.

Countless iron spheres were found in all of the WTC dust samples collected. Proponents of the official story agree that the steel was not heated enough to melt or vaporize but rather only weaken and bend/lose structural integrity leading to collapse. So where did these spheres come from? What heat source(s) existed to melt steel. Btw this research is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Also, red chips that contain more energy per gram than TNT were also found in the dust and reported in a peer reviewed journal.

So the question that remains is: Why is there evidence of highly energetic materials in the dust of an office building and what was the heat source to convert significant amounts of steel into the liquid or possibly vapor phase?

One last note, the rubble itself kept producing heat for months even after several rains and being sprayed with flame retardants. This seems to indicate that whatever was producing the heat had it's own oxidizing source mixed in with in.

I'm not pointing fingers but anyway you look at, these are questions that I believe us citizens deserve to have answered.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 15:38:53 2011 No.3179220 Hurp derp

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