Why is this building not falling down? I thought fires cause building to collapse in their own foot print.

File: 23 KB, 399x300, china-burning-building-fire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:09:10 2011 No.3197748 [Reply] [Original]

Why is this building not falling down?
I thought fires cause building to collapse in their own foot print.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:10:10 2011 No.3197753 File: 10 KB, 183x248, 1293428934835.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	EK !EKFQQAJWYU Thu Jun 9 07:11:10 2011 No.3197755 I don't know. Ask a civil engineer

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:12:10 2011 No.3197759 Probably because the guy hired to plant the explosives realized he would be killed after the operation to keep his mouth shut, and instead fled the country.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:12:10 2011 No.3197762 well, it depends how builiding is constructed, if it`s construction can stand against heat and gravity then it does not collaps

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:25:10 2011 No.3197784 >>3197762 but fire causes steel to get weak and bendable, why is it not even leaning or anything?

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:28:10 2011 No.3197789
File: 70 KB, 248x252, 1275756830606.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because this particular thing doesn't have a huge hole in it caused by the act of smacking an airliner into it, ergo it is resting on more than just a few bent beams and girders

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:30:10 2011 No.3197790 >>3197789 well if that was actually a cause then I imagine there would have been a lopsided collapse, that would only make sense

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:30:10 2011 No.3197792 what kind of fire is it? It would clearly depend on how hot it is, and how much strength the steel would lose as a result.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:32:10 2011 No.3197794 >>3197792 looks like a inferno, I dunno, is there a more technical term?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:34:10 2011 No.3197799 >>3197794 I mean, what's fuelling it? It depends on how hot the fuel would allow it to burn.

>>	mailto:NOKO !t5P//GPTyM Thu Jun 9 07:35:10 2011 No.3197800 >looks like a inferno >like a inferno >a inferno please die

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:35:10 2011 No.3197802
File: 150 KB, 800x533, 1272525295671.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A better one would have been explaining the fluttering paper in the Pentagon while the heat was apparently hot enough to vapourise titanium engines (also the hole was tiny).

Better luck next thread, OP.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:36:10 2011 No.3197804

>>3197790

Why would there be? Obviously the building took the initial impact of the plane, the horizontal force if you will. After that it's just gravity pulling the building down. No forces horizontally involved to cause a lopsided collapse. (I'm assuming by that you mean that the top half should've just tipped over)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:37:10 2011 No.3197805 >>3197800 right, >an inferno I was typing a little too fast, sorry about that, don't shoot me lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:46:10 2011 No.3197819 >>3197804 no I mean it would have been weaker on one side and started a partial collapse, a tilt, before the full downward collapse. You know what tilting is right? You do understand tilting happens a lot of times from vertical forces?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:48:10 2011 No.3197823 Still with this shit?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:50:10 2011 No.3197830 >>3197819 A pivot needs a fulcrum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:52:10 2011 No.3197836 >>3197819 That's exactly what happened, you can clearly see the tilt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:52:10 2011 No.3197841

>>3197823
yeah you do realize a bunch of people got killed over that shit and you do realize it was the start of us spending trillions of dollars towards retaliation for it.

but hey, you don't need a good reason to spend enough cash to feed all of Africa so you can kill men women and children, dude, trust me, I get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:55:10 2011 No.3197849 >>3197830 That's interesting, not sure what it has to do with what I was talking about because I'm pretty sure a tilt doesn't need a pivot or a hinge.. aside from that your answer makes you sound pretty smart!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:56:10 2011 No.3197853 nineelevenwasaninsidejob.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 07:58:10 2011 No.3197858 >>3197849 So, if >>3197836 isn't the kind of "tilt" you want, and the top half pivoting to horizontal isn't the kind of "tilt" you want, then what the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:02:10 2011 No.3197872 >>3197858 it may have been but I didn't see the fulcrum ;)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:03:10 2011 No.3197874 >>3197858 >>3197872 ..also I didn't see any horizontal forces

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:06:10 2011 No.3197880 >>3197858 >>3197872 >>3197874 I was looking more at the fire and instantaneous disintegration

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:09:10 2011 No.3197887 >>3197880 see >>3197802 The fires were hot enough to vaporize titanium, it not outside of reason/question that concrete and steel disintegrate

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:10:10 2011 No.3197889 there's not a gigantic fucking plane in the middle of the plane, maybe

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:12:10 2011 No.3197890 >>3197872 >>3197874 Neither of those responses makes any sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:15:10 2011 No.3197894 >>3197890 hey the some other guy brought it up, not me. I was only referencing >>3197830 >>3197804 who seemed to not agree with the tilting and leaning. Deep down inside I enjoy his good intentions though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 08:19:10 2011 No.3197898 >>3197889 >there's not a gigantic fucking plane in the middle of the plane, maybe yes, usually baby planes start off very small and not fucking gigantic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 11:14:10 2011 No.3198471 >>3197755 I would but they're too busy with their petition :D

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 11:19:10 2011 No.3198495 >implying building fire is as hot as plane fuel fire damn, you were so close

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 16:41:10 2011 No.3199890 >>3198495 well according to NIST building fires fueled by organic material (paper, wood and other carbon based materials) are hotter than plane fuel fire. Why did you think they weren't?

>>	GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg Thu Jun 9 16:44:10 2011 No.3199917 >US in $14T debt and Doomed I wish the US govt was brilliant like conspiracy fags say it is. If they were correct US would have 0% debt and the US would own the world. Not the inverse.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 16:56:10 2011 No.3199985

>>3199917
Yeah the US govt is so dumb and poor it not gonna have no food to eat or place to stay, maybe govt get on welfare when its forced to live in a ghetto with no retirement plan. Then again maybe govt has govt friend who will let it move in with it.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:01:10 2011 No.3200003

>>3199917
lol, yeah Obama and Bush are so fucked.. it really is admirable for Obama to put himself into debt to save all those bankers and GM. Maybe the Chinese will give him some of their super money if our American dollars become so broke because he is such a honorable dude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:04:10 2011 No.3200021 because 9/11 was an inside job, prove it to anyone all you want. the people who would blow up their own bldngs arre not the type of people who will give a fuck. as long as they are getting away with it. and they are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:10:10 2011 No.3200055 >>3200021 but Osama Bin Laden is dead [finally] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJmFkbBjbO0

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:16:10 2011 No.3200092 mfw rune of concrete: +30% fire resistance

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:19:10 2011 No.3200107 File: 18 KB, 367x211, bush ~ terror is bigger than one person.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw terror is bigger than one person

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:25:10 2011 No.3200125

>>3200021

I hail to you lone hero of the truthers, your super powers and inability to be swayed by the corrupt media and the lies of the corrupt world in which you live has granted you a privilege unknown to us, the poor sheeple.

Your only fear is, that one day you might actually wake up and realise that your own life is based on a lie.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:44:10 2011 No.3200198 >>3200092 finally someone with a brain really this conspiracy shit is pissing me off, why don't we bring the fake moon landing back up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:48:10 2011 No.3200213 >>3200198 >implying people still think we landed on the moon

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:51:10 2011 No.3200224 >>3200213 Yay, I get to link a video I like! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:52:10 2011 No.3200229 >>3200224 i love it when sheeple do comedy like that, laughing at their own ignorance because theyre so proud of it

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:52:10 2011 No.3200230

>>3199917
I really don't understand the problem with the US debt. Most states on the planet have a debt of similar size growing at a similar rate when we look at it in terms of percentage of the GDP and percentage growth of GDP and national debt. This whole debt thing seems fucked up and meaningless on national scales.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:53:10 2011 No.3200233 >>3200229 Hahahaha metahumor

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:56:10 2011 No.3200247 File: 21 KB, 569x343, Atomic gaming ~ conspiracies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200125 ATOMIC GAMING TIME! A = democracy has been and is uncorrupted B = capitalist corporate conspiracies are true

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:56:10 2011 No.3200250 >>3200229 Assuming you're serious (you're not), why the hell would you enjoy ignorance in others? It belies a very strange mindset, doesn't it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 17:57:10 2011 No.3200255 >>3200233 oh shit son i didnt even mean to do that lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:07:20 2011 No.3200311 >>3200230 >>3199917

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:09:10 2011 No.3200321 File: 146 KB, 1200x900, 1255598364418.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200230 >>3199917 little bit out-dated, things these days do that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:12:10 2011 No.3200345 File: 54 KB, 600x381, US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200230 >>3199917 >>3200321 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_debt

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:16:10 2011 No.3200358 >>3200345 >>3200321 can't get an estimate of japanese national debt, can anybody help? It be nice for comparison's sake

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:23:10 2011 No.3200392 File: 50 KB, 679x516, 1307108994680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3197836 Fucking owned Pic related you're at the top of that pyramid now; well done.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 18:51:10 2011 No.3200509 >>3200392 ownage is a bit of a hyperbole, there was no prior knowledge to there being a tilt as you can clearly see from both sides of the debate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:14:10 2011 No.3200643 >>3200392 watched it. didn't see a tilt. not owned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:15:10 2011 No.3200648 >>3200643 And this is why truthers aren't worth talking to. They truly do raise confirmation bias to an art form.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:16:10 2011 No.3200653 >>3200648 Ooooh, an understand-agree fallacy. Haven't seen one of those in ages, well done mate, you're almost as good as a creationist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:18:10 2011 No.3200662 >>3200653 Ah, nevermind. Troll, not truther. Have a nice day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:37:10 2011 No.3200762 File: 321 KB, 800x543, 0305911-collapse-lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200643 wat

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:54:10 2011 No.3200836
File: 5 KB, 251x205, fuuuuuu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Presuming that planes hijacked by terrorists with boxcutters (who kept an entire plane full of americans at bay with said boxcutters) actually toppled the buildings, why were training exercises set up for that day to keep all possible interception jets out of range, and even when assistance was offered were told to keep away from the city as it was part of a "training exercise"? There's plenty to take into account outside the actual buildings collapse.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Thu Jun 9 19:58:10 2011 No.3200850 >>3200836 You're an idiot. Just stop trying to think. A man's got to know his limitations.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:58:10 2011 No.3200852

>>3200836
Because shooting passenger jets down is such a popular method of dealing with shit. Especially over a very crowded city. Now, what could the fighter jets have done?

The planes were hijacked and smashed into the buildings shortly after take off and the passengers had no reason at the time to assume that the plane would be smashed into buildings and therefore, if they just listened to the crazy people, they had a better chance of being OK. If you notice, once people were told the planes were being used as missiles and there wasn't much hope for survival, they did fight back. Or are you selectively forgetting that one?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 19:59:10 2011 No.3200855 >>3197748 this building didnt have a jet liner crash into it faggot.

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Thu Jun 9 20:01:10 2011 No.3200858 File: 16 KB, 445x445, 1305680703759.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200852 >2011 >still responding to a conspiracyfag

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:02:10 2011 No.3200870 >>3200852 Provided an argument. >>3200850 Did effectively nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:04:10 2011 No.3200877 >>3200836 "In the world of paranoid conspiracy theories, there are no coincidences." -David Dunbar of Popular Mechanics

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:06:10 2011 No.3200882 >>3200762 Still hard to comprehend that over 220 acres of land fell out of the sky that day. The towers were fucking large.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Thu Jun 9 20:07:10 2011 No.3200884 >>3200870 You don't need arguments. You need to re-think your life.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:11:10 2011 No.3200900
File: 710 KB, 1024x768, 2031950801_0547d77f1f_b..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

anyone who believes that a skyscraper would crumble into dust as it collapsed because of anything other than a directed scaling energy weapon directed at is a complete fool.

it wasn't destroyed by controlled demolition or as a result of the burning jet fuel (which mostly burned up within the first 3-5 minutes of the explosion at the very most).

the buildings don't merely fall at free fall speed: they are pushed towards the ground into their own foot print and dissolving into powder (both steel and concrete) on the way down.

it is a shame how low the quality of the dialogue is about this particular subject on either side of the fence: the main reason being that in order to understand the true magnitude of the effects that were observably in play on that date require a fairly advanced understanding of material science and theoretical physics well beyond that of even a typical university education.

i am no longer convinced that it is important that we truly understand the mechanism at play on that particular date, and its relationship to many more recent contemporary "disasters". i see this as a decisive evolutionary marker for each and every individual on the planet. how you see reality specifically informs which direction you are growing towards, and whether you get caught up in the unofficial "conspiracies" or the official doctrine one is enslaved to their particular viewpoint.

it is clear to me that the world is a much stranger place than most of us are willing to admit, and i for one am well aware of my ignorance. i am here to observe and learn, not to make definitive assertions about reality. as it stands now, i am not sure than many of us are truly ready for the ramifications of the true nature of human existence.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:11:10 2011 No.3200902

>>3200852

IIRC, one plane left from either newark or jfk, and the other came in from boston. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. There was almost a 20 minute gap between crashes. Had there been any interceptor jets in the area, is it not feasible that one could have taken the plane down over an unpopulated area between boston and new york?

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:15:10 2011 No.3200925
File: 3 KB, 142x126, donol dock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3200884

I'm still not following. Are you equating trying to find answers to questions with not living a life properly? If it turns out that I've wasted my precious time, I'll at least understand why. I suppose that this is pointless to argue, though, seeing as you've got things figured out far better than I do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:17:10 2011 No.3200938 >>3197789 neither did tower 7 and it still collapsed due to fire

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:18:10 2011 No.3200940

>>3200900
>the buildings don't merely fall at free fall speed: they are pushed towards the ground into their own foot print and dissolving into powder (both steel and concrete) on the way down.

Now this is patently false, first, its a lie to say they fell at free fall speed, the many different videos of the collapses have been studied a lot, to say that they fell FASTER then free fall speed, your leaving the realm of lies and entering the realm of insanity.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:19:10 2011 No.3200944

word to the wise: research the seismic data gathered from new york that day. look at how little the impact of the material from the buildings shook the ground, compared to the mathematical estimates of how much mass the buildings consisted of.

also look at how relatively short the pile of rubble was: some estimates place actual height of the rubble to downwards of less than a third of what should have been there.

manhattan was covered in a thick layer of dust, both concrete and steel. no bombs were used to pulverise the building and there is no significant evidence to prove the nanothermite hypothesis (as thermite will not pulverise anything).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:19:10 2011 No.3200946 2011, still no evidence for conspiracy

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:20:10 2011 No.3200954

>>3200940
i highly suggest you look into the seismic data.
one would expect two or more buildings to shake the earth with quite a force if they fell.
the numbers don't lie: a large amount mass simply did not strike the earth in large chunks.

something powderised millions of tonnes of concrete and steel. it was not explosives.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:21:10 2011 No.3200956 >>3200855 neither did tower 7 however it collapsed due to fire

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:21:10 2011 No.3200960 >Why is this building not falling down? Because the only thing on fire are the tarps that were attatched to the scaffolding. /thread

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:22:10 2011 No.3200964
File: 128 KB, 721x633, wtc7swd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3200938
>neither did tower 7 and it still collapsed due to fire

Yea just fire. Giant chunks of debris from the falling towers didnt cause massive structural damage- oh wait, it did, faggot. This is the number one lie "truthers"(god thats some good irony) like to bring up about building 7.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:22:10 2011 No.3200965 File: 16 KB, 423x272, thumbs up regan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The war on terror is righteous! Just like the war on drugs.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:25:10 2011 No.3200977

if you're not satisfied with the typical "9/11 truther" nonsense conspiracies OR the completely flawed bullshit official story, i highly suggest you check out this work by dr. judy wood. she has an extraordinarily well-researched and presented book.

this may not be the whole answer, but it is a lot closer. don't dismiss it because of your prejudices: both the OFFICAL story AND the 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT are overlooking a significant amount of data.

http://www.drjudywood.com/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:27:10 2011 No.3200992 File: 25 KB, 512x311, larry silverstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] get money get money doodoot doot doodoot!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:30:10 2011 No.3201010 File: 147 KB, 501x549, tgwtg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200977 WORST WEBSITE DESIGN EVER JESUS CHRIST MY EYES

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:30:10 2011 No.3201013

>>3200964

U mad?

What did I say that wasn't true?

Building 7 collapsed due to fire.

For someone that wants to advise others on "truth" and logic you seem to be very emotionally attached to your beliefs.

>massive structural damage

From debris?

Funny how WTC 6 didn't collapse from the same damage and fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:32:10 2011 No.3201022 File: 58 KB, 646x316, Skärmavbild 5771-10-07 kl. 20.31.35.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3201010 agreed, but you could just read the book if you're so willing to dismiss something because of the layout of the website.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:32:10 2011 No.3201024

CONSPIRACYFAGS

WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Gc_Wyotzw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SpADWOCqCs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHZ4w8feL1g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B3BBD6_g6U&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZRmzCm8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MIQtPklzs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikovKyhWGcE&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:34:10 2011 No.3201039 File: 215 KB, 1098x1548, buy..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmdKYT-nv6Q http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:43:10 2011 No.3201083 File: 2.09 MB, 135x180, dustspire.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] watch the dust (gif)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 20:56:10 2011 No.3201122 >>3201083 okay

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 21:02:10 2011 No.3201142

>>3201122
i sometimes joke that we shouldn't call this place the "universe", because that's a bit of a misnomer.
i think it should be called "too much information". it's really such a goddamned shame that we upright primates have such a small buffer and an even smaller on board cache, and that we are so prone intellectual (possibly brain) damage due to tremendous emotional attachement to particular viewpoints.

honestly, i am just sort of tired of pretending that we are running at full capacity, given what i personally know about the nature of reality in general. maybe it's supposed to be this way, like if you really want to free yourself then you really have to work for it.

i don't see anyone in this situation as being inherently positive or negative. everyone is just doing what they are supposed to do, or what they feel they should do given limiting circumstances and the overall weakness of the human mind in general.

oh well

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 21:10:10 2011 No.3201177 >>3201142 it's almost like the difference between possessing wisdom or arrogance is scaled by an inverse square.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 21:20:10 2011 No.3201229

>>3201013
>What did I say that wasn't true?
>Building 7 collapsed due to fire

Did you even read my post, this is classic truther disinformation, Sure yea the fire was part of it, but you totally left out the other more important damage.

>For someone that wants to advise others on "truth" and logic you seem to be very emotionally attached to your beliefs.
Emotions and belief have nothing to do with this, the facts in the picture speak for themselves. Look at it again, seeing proof that something you believe is false makes you mad doesnt it? Ignoring it doesnt make it go away.

>Funny how WTC 6 didn't collapse from the same damage and fire

Now your just going full retard. it was MUCH smaller, and DID have a partial collapse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 21:20:10 2011 No.3201230 File: 11 KB, 400x300, 1287970716235.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3200198 the moon landing was an inside job!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 21:22:10 2011 No.3201238 File: 64 KB, 700x610, Image-1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3201229 itt: people who know everything about everything

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:28:10 2011 No.3201486
File: 21 KB, 523x361, bbc on wtc7 2specific 2early.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3201024
Wow that is horrible, like ancient alien astronaut horrible..
Part 3 really gets shaky. Compare the amount of time the 'skeptics' spend on camera compared to the conspiracy theorists.. Almost every statement made is "oh yeah that's wrong because they're ignoring facts.." but they don't give the facts.

"oh yeah that Loose Change totally owned by Popular mother fucking AMERICAN Mechanics" -- bam -- where's your peer-reviewed pay-check?

"oh yeah people who believe in conspiracy theories.. they're just trying to be a hero in a make believe story" -- bam -- psychologically profiled

"oh yeah those smoke plumes.. building is like an accordion" -- bam -- myth busted

"oh yeah the building not taking longer to fall.. those claims are simply not factual" -- bam -- get those claims outta here!

"oh yeah those people that said they heard explosions, they didn't say they heard bombs and last time I check, firemen aren't FBI agents" -- bam -- get those imbeciles outta here!

"Oh yeah we might not have pictures of the plane from the kazillion CCTV cameras but we have hundreds of witness, plane pieces and body parts [citation needed]" -- bam -- real-life EYE-witnesses not EAR-witnesses!

"Oh yeah those stand down orders, just look at all the holes in Secretary Norman Mineta's story, which aircraft SECRETARY??" -- uhh -- this one sucks and those annoying faggots won't drop it [EXPERT OPNION].

"oh yeah NORAD failed, conspiracy theorists think the government can actually work" -- bam -- WHAT DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK?

still watching... I'm having fun...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:29:10 2011 No.3201490 >>3201486 i like that no one here is even going to consider dr. wood's work because it requires too much effort to think about it

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:36:10 2011 No.3201506

World Trade Center 1 and 2 were constructed as two giant tubes with the floors attached to the outside and the center utility tubes. The construction of the building in the picture is clearly different. Also the building is smaller.

My intuition is that all it would take is one floor to collapse to due to impact damge to bring the entire structure down.

People who want to show that WTC could not go down due to fire need to do computer simulations and publish their results, or shutup.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:37:10 2011 No.3201509
File: 35 KB, 431x540, Empirestate540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Never Forget:

In 1945 a B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building causing massive fires AND IT DIDNT FALL DOWN

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

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:39:10 2011 No.3201512 >>3201509 smaller plane into an over-engineered building.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:40:10 2011 No.3201514

>>3201506
quick question: have you ever heard that there was considerably less material in solid form hitting the pavement in downtown manhattan that day than you would expect from a falling building?

everyone accepts that there is dust everywhere but no one has a reasonable explanation for how several THOUSAND TONNES of steel and concrete can just dustify into micron sized particles.

it obviously wasn't explosives, but it also obviously isn't typical for a building to powderise itself under its own mass as it falls towards the earth.

why does everyone ignore this point, no matter what side of the issue they are on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:41:10 2011 No.3201517 >>3201514 there is honest to god seismic evidence from they event that a significant amount of the material simply didn't hit the ground as large chunks. what can powderise steel? we can't give into confusion. there has to be an answer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:42:10 2011 No.3201518 >>3197784 I love the fact that almost all of you acknowledge this to be a troll thread, and yet it is one of the most active on the board and has 94 replies.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:42:10 2011 No.3201519

Have any of you actually seen what they do to implode a building? They weaken it and they place a lot of individual charges.

Nobody has ever presented a reasonable explanation of how the explosives could have been placed with nobody knowing.

They must have been built into the building back in the 60s when it was constructed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:43:10 2011 No.3201522 >>3201509 The Empire State Building could outlast Armageddon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:43:10 2011 No.3201524 >>3201509 >small propeller plane into a far more sturdy building Because that's exactly the same thing as putting a huge jumbo jet through a weaker structure.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:46:10 2011 No.3201530

>>3201519
not a troll thread.

>>3201518
there were no explosives. the buildings were more or less "shaken" into microsized granules by the interference of two or more standing waves which were directed at the site and ramped up to the mean resonant frequency of the masses of the buildings at the site.

it was not an inside job. the simple truth is that no one really knows what happened.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:49:10 2011 No.3201534

>>3201530
Standing waves generated by what? Wouldn't such a signal show up on seismographs for thousands of miles? Wouldn't energy required to generate such a wave be massive? Like enough energy to power Manhattan itself? How is that less far fetched than 15,000 gallons of kerosene weakening a structure that would fail quickly once it started to fall.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:55:10 2011 No.3201550

>>3201534
think about the way a cell phone works.

everything solid has a frequency at which it resonates: like how ANYONE can break a glass with their own voice (not just opera singers, try it out!).

i don't know where the waves came from, but there are also meteorological effects around the site which are difficult to explain by anything other than some sort of directed waves.

hypothetically, it could be done from anywhere on the planet, or more chillingly: off planet, such as one or more microwave satellites.

and yes!!! there is tonnes of seismographic evidence that is highly abnormal! that is by far the most intriguing part of the whole event.

i used to be a 9/11 truther because it seemed like there was no other explanation, because obviously the standard story is ridiculous to anyone who can see a larger picture... HOWEVER it became obvious after a few years of looking at this that there is something VERY strange about the existence of all of that nano sized material (ie. the dust).

it's really quite fascinating, to be honest. the moment i realised that something truly strange was afoot, i actually got a little giddy haha

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:55:10 2011 No.3201551 >>3201509 good ol' asbestos

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:56:10 2011 No.3201555 File: 8 KB, 201x251, 1224743763104s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] LOOK AT ALL THE FUCKING SCIENCE ITT

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:58:10 2011 No.3201558
File: 21 KB, 468x311, bbc on wtc7 2specific 2early-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3201024

"oh yeah Silverstein says 'pull it', conspiracy theorists think that's a sexy way of saying release the charge, it was 'the fireman'" -- bam -- Silverstein was not being sexy that day [EXPERT OPINION]

"oh yeah building 7, just had to collapse so therefore burden of proof is on the conspirators" -- knock, knock! who's there? burden. burden who? BURDEN OF PROOF ON YOU. -- BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM

"oh yeah, prior knowledge.. government can't keep secrects stupid!" -- bam -- you conspiracy theorists don't TRUST ANYBODY.

"oh yeah, conspiracy theorists have this messiah complex that they are the only ones who know the truth" -- bam -- no cross, no christ

"conspiracy theories are like knives in the hearts of the victim's family members. If you believe in a conspiracy theory you hate the victims families" -- b_a_h_a_h_a_a_h_a_a_a_h_a_m -- just got called out for being the insensitive attention whores you all are.

(side note: more attention whores here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4 .. just look at how micheal moorish the production on this shit is!)

"oh yeah, conpsiracy theorist are emotionally invested in their view of themselves they obviously have an agenda." -- bam -- if you're emotionally invested in yourself you obviously can never become as credible as us.

..and I forgot one earlier..

"oh yeah, PNAC's involvement, nope.vbs, the problem is that conspiracy theorists want an explanation proportional to the devistation" -- bam -- that's not how the real world works, just look at Iraq you idiot.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:58:10 2011 No.3201561

>>3201555
wheredidthetowersgo.com

quite a lot of science, really: if you take science to mean empirical observation of evidence based on phenomenologically generated events occurring within a single objective reality which is completely devoid of opinion, or other logical impurities?

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 22:59:10 2011 No.3201564

>>3201550
The amplitude of the input wave would have to be significant to start with to be able to bring down a building. Just because you hit resonance doesn't mean you're going to rattle apart. It needs a specific intensity to be able to do something. tl;dr it'd have to be earthquake strength to take down those buildings, even at resonance.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:02:10 2011 No.3201572

>>3201564
>>tl;dr it'd have to be earthquake strength to take down those buildings, even at resonance.

i agree. i really don't have a fucking clue. i have never built any sort of resonance weapon, but sometime i have a lot of fun in my apartment shaking the whole building by singing a specific tone in my living room at a volume a little less than my own speaking voice.

believe it or not, you don't actually need a great amplitude. you just need to dial in the right harmonic nodes. have you ever played a bass?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:03:10 2011 No.3201577 >>3201550 >Friction? Damping? Q factor? What's that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:03:10 2011 No.3201578 >>3201572 take your bass to the bathroom. find the right frequency and shake shit off of your shelves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:05:10 2011 No.3201580 >>3201577 we are talking LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF TONNES of POWDERISED STEEL steel is very difficult to work with when it is in a fairly static state, however if you vibrate it at the right frequency you could press it like butter.

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Thu Jun 9 23:06:10 2011 No.3201585 >>3201578 >wondering why he wants me to shake a fish in the bathroom.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:07:10 2011 No.3201590

>>3201572

You're right in that all you have to do is match the frequency to hit resonance. That's what resonance is. But it needs a certain intensity to do damage to a building. Everything in this world is bombarded by a wide variety of frequencies everyday, but the waves generally don't have enough amplitude to show significant resonance in objects.

I've done a few resonances experiments myself, and have played around with that in rooms, too. But so long as it's not intense enough, nothing will happen. You can hit buildings with sound waves that match the buildings natural frequency. Nothing will happen; sound waves have small amplitudes and power. But if the ground is to shake at that frequency, it has the power to cause damage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:08:10 2011 No.3201592 >>3201580 >still doesn't know what damping is

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:11:10 2011 No.3201601 >>3201592 ok give us a specific value then, you don't even have to tell us what the definition is assuming that units won't give it away

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:14:10 2011 No.3201609 >>3201601 Wouldn't that be dependent on the variety of materials and geometry?

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:15:10 2011 No.3201610

>>3201601
Why don't you go learn something about resonance rather than trying to initiate some sort of guessing games with units?

Most objects do not have magic frequencies that if hit precisely will cause really huge oscillations. The reason is our friend damping.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:15:10 2011 No.3201611

>>3201590
of course, i agree with you entirely.
as i said, i have no answers. all i know is that there are thousands of tonnes of powdered steel and concrete, very abnormal seismological readings from the site (especially concerning the collapses of the buildings, being rather UNDERWHELMING), strange weather behaviour, and a whole host of other physical anomalies that are entirely ignored by both 9/11 truthers (who are primarily promoting an anti-elitist agenda which, whether or not it is justifiable, is very caustic to the idea that this is not some sort of internal conspiracy) and those who "believe" the conventional hypothesis (which has to ignore an incredible amount of information in order to cover itself from revealing the fact that those authoritative bodies have employed their official doctrine as a means of pushing their own hegemonic intentions both domestically and abroad, as chomsky said "every single authoritarian power on the planet benefited from 9/11").

i propose that no one has a goddamned clue what happened because the reality of this entire situation is so bizarre and improbable that it forces an undeniable immediately polarising reaction in the hearts of every single person who encounters it.

i am merely arguing that the event is STRANGE, much stranger than anyone has thus far been willing to acknowledge. i think it is very important to examine this event apolitically, and agnostically because frankly: no one can wrap it up in a neat little explanation without reducing the reality by displacing massive swaths of n-dimensional information clusters!

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:18:10 2011 No.3201618

>>3201610
have you ever been inside of a car with huge subwoofers?
i imagine that you will argue with anything: where did the dust come from? i am not sold on directed energy, but what else can cause steel to break down into nanomicron sized particles other than something that causes the loosening of electromagnetic bonds between molecules? to my knowledge, it is quite easy to do with high frequency oscillation, but then again my whole point is that something very strange is afoot and i don't expect us to uncover it in an internet forum tonight.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:18:10 2011 No.3201620 >>3201611 While I know nothing of the other strange events, I'd put good money on the fact that resonance had nothing to do with it unless there was a significant seismological event at that moment in time (i.e. earthquake-sized)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:18:10 2011 No.3201621 http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html I know it's Cracked, but this article is VERY relevant to the topic at hand. People on BOTH sides of the issue should read this in its entirety.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:21:10 2011 No.3201626

>>3201610
ad hominem

i also argued that a constant force was applied in the form of a standing wave, sort of like hitting a punching bag again and again as it swings towards you. i am not saying, hit it once and let it go.

would you rather be a jerk, or would you like to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why a bunch of buildings could just crumble into dust and leave very short piles of rubble with much less solid material than any one would ever expect from a collapse?

for all the talk of logic that gets thrown around here, i am amazed at how quick people are to dismiss huge amounts of information instead of synthesising every available variable?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:21:10 2011 No.3201627 >>3201618 >to my knowledge, it is quite easy to do with high frequency oscillation Well, your knowledge is balderdash. You know something that's good at breaking down bonds between molecules? Lots of heat. Commonly found in fires.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:23:10 2011 No.3201629

>>3201620
what i am supposing and that you are ignoring is that there are infact recent earthquakes that are caused by these non-local resonance techniques.
i don't think it is fair to dismiss a hypothesis because we can't imagine how it could be done. as i said, i am only talking about dust here. the vehicle for its production is the important thing, and i am COMPLETELY open to better ideas.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:24:10 2011 No.3201631 >>3201609 I dunno, I'm just trying to figure out why it was brought up, if it is of a significant value or if it's just a talking point for the sake of argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:24:10 2011 No.3201632 >>3201627 do you believe that matter is solid, or do you believe that molecules are energetic lattices? please don't attack me. we are talking about dust. i know it's hard to talk about the thing itself, but this is what i would like to do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:26:10 2011 No.3201636 >>3201627 chemical energy is not responsible for the vast majority of bonds in matter. i am proposing that there is a way to overcome the electroweak bonds of a given molecular lattice by oscillating them apart.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:26:10 2011 No.3201637

>>3201610
ok that's nice but now you're just throwing it around like it's some kind of white magic that stops evil magic frequencies... aside from that I'll just accept the fact that you and the other post are talking out of your ass to sound important cause you jelly of other people's theories.

No value no fact.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:28:10 2011 No.3201643

>>3201636
the main idea being that if you overcome the effective distance of the force through rhythmic oscillation that any metallic object greater than a single nanosized ball will suddenly push the atoms it was previously attracted to away a la the repulsive forces present before the coloumb barrier

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:30:10 2011 No.3201646

>>3201626
>i also argued that a constant force was applied in the form of a standing wave, sort of like hitting a punching bag again and again as it swings towards you. i am not saying, hit it once and let it go.

I know that is what you are saying. However, a punching bag is an oscillating system with very little friction. If you hit an arbitrary object repeatedly at its natural vibration frequency, the oscillations will in general not build up to a really strong oscillation because energy is lost to friction.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:31:10 2011 No.3201650

>>3201646
the idea is not really to get the building swinging back and forth, i think this is what you are imagining and of course i agree with you.
i am talking about making the steel vibrate in place. i think it's quite easy to imagine what this might have looked like at an ionic scale.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:32:10 2011 No.3201651 >>3201650 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWvgjOkFPiM

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:36:10 2011 No.3201659 >>3201650 btw that's why there are MORE THAN ONE WAVES otherwise you'd be right. the idea is that the beats of interference (a la binaural beats) is what destroys the bond.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:43:10 2011 No.3201669 This talk of resonance causing stuff to turn into dust is the most intense next level stupidity or trolling ive ever seen..

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:45:10 2011 No.3201674

>seeing proof that something you believe is false makes you mad doesnt it? Ignoring it doesnt make it go away.

projection. people in glass houses ect ect
>it was MUCH smaller, and DID have a partial collapse.

implying? Partial structural damage and fire is enough to take down a large reinforced steel building but only enough to cause a partial collapse in a smaller building?

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:47:10 2011 No.3201677

>>3201669
and i suppose you know everything.
no one has any idea where that dust came from. so far, NO available mainstream, or sub-mainstream explanation even comes close to offering an acceptable answer.
don't be so sure of yourself. there is a lot about the world that you don't understand, most of it infact.
anyway, i am off for the night. i will be very happy if at least one person really digs into the material that i have tried to present without getting caught up on their own prejudices, whatever side of the issue they are on.

goodnight.

Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:55:10 2011 No.3201706

I'd really like to point something out here.

Put aside that events of Sept 11 2001 NY,NY for a moment, and step back.

Notice how venomously angry people get when you question the subject?

How the moment a "truther" speaks everybody goes into attack mode?

Why? Why are people so angry when someone questions this event?

People don't like to have their understanding of the world challenged. The idea that something has happened in a way that would make them question some basic assumptions about the world disturbs them.

The missionary atheists of /sci/ should take note of these subject.

Watching people reply to "truthers" is a good insight into the mindset of theists when considering evolution.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 9 23:58:10 2011 No.3201717 >>3201706 Who gives a shit about political agendas? What do you know about steel dust?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:02:10 2011 No.3201735 >>3201706 Stop giving atheists a bad name you fucking retarded piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:04:10 2011 No.3201749 >>3201735 Seriously, there is a whole lot of arrogance going on here. Arrogance is antithetical to wisdom.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:06:10 2011 No.3201758 >>3201749 >wisdom >the content of this thread choose one

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:06:10 2011 No.3201759 >>3201706 >ever notice how people troll? >Or notice how when people troll people get angry? >Isn't that weird guyz? cool story bro.ram

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:06:10 2011 No.3201761 >>3201735 >implying atheists need help getting a bad rap

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:08:10 2011 No.3201769 >>3201735 explain your statement? What did you take from that post that makes you think that I'm "giving atheists a bad name"? I think you're either trolling or misunderstanding.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:08:10 2011 No.3201770 >>3201761 doesn't help when we have retards hum hurrin shit as though they represent us

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:09:10 2011 No.3201775 >>3201758 so be it i'm glad that you're satisfied with your choice

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:09:10 2011 No.3201776

>>3201677

I get the impression you think that every single portion of the building was made of steel.. The whole building collapsed, this includes everything inside.. thats enough dust supply for me.

Also, the whole resonance thing.
if you think that every single iron lattice bond broke simultaneously and thus produced dust, please recreate this on any level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:09:10 2011 No.3201777 >>3201770 Right right, the no true troll argument.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:10:10 2011 No.3201781

>>3201759

Do you think all truthers are trolls?

And even if they were, why do people get angry?

It's very selective.

I mean if I came to say asserting that 2+2=5, I'd get a few laughs maybe my thread would be ignored ect ect

But come to /sci/ and start talking about 9/11 and

BAM people are pissed

why?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:13:10 2011 No.3201793 >itt: deluded americunts and lib arts majors While we're on the subject, anyone care to explain why Building Seven came down?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:15:10 2011 No.3201799

>>3201776
No, the parts that were made of steel were made of steel.
The vast majority of the building was concrete, plastics and other materials.
I think that many people have done similar things on a small scale in their own laboratories.
Do you know how a bumblebee flies? It is nor aerodynamic. It vibrates.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:16:10 2011 No.3201802 >>3201781 >people troll >trolled people >people troll people poe's law.fm

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:16:10 2011 No.3201805

>>3201793
Obviously, they had originally planned for three planes hitting the WTC, but something went wrong. But they already had the explosives planted in the tower, so they had to bring it down so that no one would discover their nefarious plot.

What sort of sheeple do you think we are?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:17:10 2011 No.3201806

>>3201781
you're challenging their sense of security. A lot of people like to think that a world without war will solve everything and that we are all well meaning people who just fall short of not having a war.

Golly, anon-kun people sure are stupid ne?
yeah /sci/-kun people are never going to get smart like us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:21:10 2011 No.3201820 ITT: Conspircy theories

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:22:10 2011 No.3201822 >>3201805 lol you are so silly. Building Seven was brought down to destroy all the logs and account books of the Wall Street lawsuits that were stored there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:24:10 2011 No.3201836 >>3201820 the vast majority of the posts are not about conspiracies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:28:10 2011 No.3201855 >>3201836 >sounds like a republican

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:29:10 2011 No.3201860 >>3201855 wtf kind of assertion is that? dust. it's all about dust. no one in the thread has a clue save for one asshole

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:29:10 2011 No.3201865

>>3201820

Maybe, I think it's part that, or maybe there's a compulsion on the part of people to force their world view upon others whenever they're strongly convinced of it.

Or is that incidental? Do people NEED to proselytize in order to believe something with conviction?

Note this post : >>3201806

What do you think was meant by it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:31:10 2011 No.3201867 >>3201860 >uses terms like 'vast majority' >likes fuzzyness as it aids his probability function to speak truth

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Fri Jun 10 00:31:10 2011 No.3201868 >>3197748 OP, while most fires due cause building to collapse, not all fires do. Everyone who immediately went to talking about WTC, you guys are nuts. Both of you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:32:10 2011 No.3201871 >>3201867 All he's saying is that dust is not a conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:35:10 2011 No.3201883 >>3201871 Tell that to people with OCD

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:45:10 2011 No.3201927

scientists are all geared towards group consesus
how many times has actual evidence been dismissed because the larger community wouldn't dare shake the status quo?
science irl has more todo with politics than truth.

Any non-mainstream idea is always ridiculed independent of it's veracity if it dares infringe upon the groups consesus.

/sci/ should be changed to /dei/, for all the pathetic religious thinking that is only noticeable to non-tards.
You're all so fucking stupid that you fancy yourselves smart. It's not funny, it's irritating and pathetic.

Rage so more next time someone dares question one of your sacred cows. Brainwashed fucktards the lot of ya.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:47:10 2011 No.3201933 >>3201927 You sir are a gentleman and a scholar

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:55:10 2011 No.3201954
File: 279 KB, 1680x1050, 1291705656279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Can I just say that in spite of all the name calling in this thread none of the naysayers have given a clear answer as to how thousands of tons of steel and concrete were vaporized and why there was a significantly reduced seismic impact that was in regards to what that amount of debris should have made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:55:10 2011 No.3201958 >>3201954 amen brother

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 00:57:10 2011 No.3201962 >>3201954 Can I just say? [citation needed, formulas included, mass calculations, et al.] >Words = easy >Math = hard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:00:10 2011 No.3201974 >>3201962 you need a citation for all of the dust covering manhattan after that event? be my guest, there's literally tonnes of it. i'm sure you could get a handful of your own if you wanted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:01:10 2011 No.3201975 >>3201974 [rationalizes his complete lack of information]

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:03:10 2011 No.3201982

>>3201975
what the fuck are you talking about?
do you have nothing to contribute?

everyone knows that there was dust everywhere. that isn't any kind of conspiracy, nor is it subject to any political whims.

can we please just try to discuss this? i know this is 4chan but honestly, there is a real good usage for this board if applied properly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:08:10 2011 No.3201998 >>3201982 [Keeps responding with no added value]

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:12:10 2011 No.3202006

>>3201975
there's boatloads of information available.
why is the ownness upon the shoulders of everyone else? are you really satisfied with the idea that two planes powederised three buildings?

no conspiracy theories or any of that bullshit.

it is a simple fact that there was a disproportionate amount of dust created by that event. it has been demonstrated that nano sized balls of iron are present in the dust, as observed by an electron microscope.

all of the physical remains of the dustification of the wtc are present. we need only to consider the rather strange notions that it conjures in order to begin to see the event for what it is.

arrogance is the sureness that comes when one reduces a complex event to a simple hypothesis. the simple fact is that there are too many bizarre details.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:15:10 2011 No.3202013 >>3202006 [Doesn't realize when presenting findings one needs to present information to support sed findings]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:15:10 2011 No.3202014 >>3201998 honestly, i don't know what you're on. i think there is a lot of information in this thread worth pouring through, beyond the tired stereotypical conspiracy theories and the obviously inept official story.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:16:10 2011 No.3202019 >>3202006 >think he's on /lit/ where people discuss fiction >doesn't realize /sci/ is for non-fiction

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:17:10 2011 No.3202021 >>3202014 [Couldn't provide a single tangible fact]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:17:10 2011 No.3202022 >>3201982 you look seriously dumbheaded right now

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:17:10 2011 No.3202024 >>3202013 1 second on google searching http://www.google.com/search?q=dust+world+trade+centre http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:19:10 2011 No.3202027 >>3202024 [Doesn't realize using a search engine to provide scientific information will never pass peer review]

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:19:10 2011 No.3202029

>>3202006

All of this makes no sense..

Who cares if theres nano sized balls of iron in the dust.. Theres a bunch of dust cause the fucking building is crumpling..

I really dont think you can comment on how its a disproportionate amount of dust; how many demolitions of buildings of that size with those circumstances have you witnessed/read about/ever happened?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:20:10 2011 No.3202032

>>3202022
says whom? a detractor with nothing better to do than insult his fellow man.
honestly, what is the point of even trying to communicate if all we ever do is attack each other? where is the real science, the one that is not afraid to make mistakes because it knows that mistakes lead to progress? don't be so arrogant as to believe you have all of the answers. surely you are smug sitting behind a keyboard pretending to be a boss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:24:10 2011 No.3202046 >>3202032 >implying i wasnt trying help you hey seriously though, nice trolling.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:25:10 2011 No.3202050

>>3202029
as it has been said numerous times before, the seismological information from that day is open to the public. anyone can find out what the recorded impact of the material in the towers striking the ground really was.

instead of finding out for yourself you don't even bother to consider it, which is completely normal behaviour for an individual who believes he has all of the answers.

why is it so hard to accept that this event was very strange, and that there is a significant amount of material which is neither acknowledged or explained by either the mainstream 9/11 truth movement or the followers of the official story?

this whole time you are asking me to explain myself when someone has linked to a book and a website which presents all of this information AND citations for everything.

please just read the website. this is not a politically motivated statement. i am not living in fear of a world elite bent on global domination nor do i believe that a bunch of muslims are trying to strike fear into the hearts of americans.

i am honestly just interested in science, and where there is absolute certainty there are no questions and when there are no questions there is no science!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:26:10 2011 No.3202055 >>3202046 help or hinder. it's late. i assure you i am not trolling.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:26:10 2011 No.3202057 >>3202050 10/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:27:10 2011 No.3202061 >>3202032 [Doesn't realize the point is to formulate a hypothesis, gather consistent and normative data, and create testable predictions]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:27:10 2011 No.3202062 File: 19 KB, 298x291, murrah_building.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How about this one. Little more energetic than a plane crash. Why is it still standing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:28:10 2011 No.3202064 File: 55 KB, 913x776, arguingisforretards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw people never realize this

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:30:10 2011 No.3202070

>>3202046
honestly, everyone has this whole thing wrong.

people want to make this whole issue into black vs white, regardless of what side they are on. my only point is that no one knows the truth at all.

while the energy weapon hypothesis seems strange at first, there is a large amount of compiled evidence and measured phenomena to support this.

anyone who wants to know about this extremely thoroughly compiled evidence should visit

http://drjudywood.com
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

the abnormal phenomena are not limited to either the presence of dust, the seismic evidence, or meteorological evidence alone. there are far too many bizarre pieces of evidence to list here.

please just do the necessary research. there is real truth here, devoid of politics and agendas of any sort.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:32:10 2011 No.3202076

>>3201962
Well given the implications of this disaster you might have to assume any information on the regards might be tampered with (an assumption many /sci/ fags aren't willing to toy with) but just going off of what is actually visible from various live footage it doesn't seem odd to you that literally the ENTIRE building of concrete and steel is reduced to dust. Not chunks and hunks of metal and rock. Dust. I have never seen metal do that in my life before and while I can understand a large amount of it we are talking about practically an entire building here. Sometimes you need to see with your eyes and not what other people say happened.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:33:10 2011 No.3202079 >>3202070 the other point is >no one presents consistent facts, evidence or conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:34:10 2011 No.3202082 >>3202076 [rationalizing his ignorance] sure is /x/ around here

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:38:10 2011 No.3202093

>>3202061
this is going to be my last message.
i don't know you so it doesn't matter to me that you would rather discuss my individual posts than look into the information that has been provided. obviously, it is not anyone else's responsibility to make up your mind but you and no matter what, whether you ignore the evidence or you are simply overwhelmed by it (this is where i am at!) the simple fact is that a clear objective case must be built which does not depend upon any specific opinion in order to assert realworld rational truth.
i ask only that the whole body of evidence be considered. this will not work for a lot of people, namely the 9/11 truthers and the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth who have arrogantly declared that they know the answer to the mysterious events that took place on that day. there is no evidence to support a controlled demolition aside from the appearance of the building collapses and some extremely bizarre seismic data (large spikes right before the planes hit, very bizarre indeed!) which are not easily explained by them. they rely upon chemical means as the primary vehicle for the destruction of the buildings, as do the mainstream believes (although they of course believe that the energy present in the jet fuel is all the chemistry required).

there is real physical evidence such as unburned papers, and such that simply does not account for fires being the primary cause of the destruction.

if it was not fire, and it was not bombs, then what caused the buildings to turn to dust? here we enter murky territory and unfortunately as yet, even in 2011 the quality of the dialogue is still far too low to sustain the kind of freewheeling intellectual play that will be necessary to truly understand the events of that fateful day.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:39:10 2011 No.3202097 >>3202093 back to /lit/ and /x/ you go where they appreciate words over math and rational deduction of logical information.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:41:10 2011 No.3202103

>>3202082
honestly, you are very tiring.
you have not made a single contribution. luckily your efforts bump the thread, and therefore open others to the chance of seeing dr. judy wood's well-researched and even better presented information. to my knowledge she is the only researcher who has made significant efforts to explain the dustification of the wtc. while i do not agree with all of her points, she certainly has produced a body of work that can be easily referenced, is extremely well cited and very thoroughly explained so that even my inadequacies present in all of my responses here on this forum can be easily tested against the real physical information that she has gathered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:42:10 2011 No.3202107 >>3202103 [fails to realize he's talking to /sci/bot and doesn't notice no one cares about his rant]

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Fri Jun 10 01:42:10 2011 No.3202108 >>3202062 It's a reinforced concrete building, dimwit. If the '92 WTC bombers had that bomb, the WTC would have fallen 9 years earlier.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:42:10 2011 No.3202109 >>3202097 why do that? i am sorry that i have not written any math here. i am a physicist, not a writer and english is not my best language. i ask that you read the book that i have talked about and see if you still have your doubts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:44:10 2011 No.3202113 >>3202107 why would anyone assume that? this place is certainly awful.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:49:10 2011 No.3202130

So my counter argument to /sci/ is what evidence do you have that any of these events would cause concrete and steel to turn to dust. Seeing as this is such a clear cut case for you all I want to see you back up your argument with evidence. Has there ever been documentation stating that under temperatures such as the flashpoint of airline fuel concrete or steel have a tendency to collapse into powder? Because given the extreme ridiculousness of a steel building having never collapsed before I say the burden of proof rest upon you. Under EVERY demolition I have ever witnessed involving steel based buildings the girders always survive. Under every building burning down I have ever witnessed the girders are the last thing to go. But you are saying there is nothing strange about a historical first of concrete and steel giving way and both powderizing at the same time. I think you all are the ones with absurd claims here

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 01:56:10 2011 No.3202145 >>3202109 they won't bother looking into what is already a foregone conclusion for them /sci/ respects authority over evidence you're tilting at windmills friend

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:04:10 2011 No.3202158 >>3202145 >/sci/ respects authority over evidence Yeah, what's up with that? That has really hurt this board. /new/ would do that routine all the time, like criticize the url and not even respond to the article's contents let alone read it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:05:10 2011 No.3202161 >>3202145 > /sci/ respects authority over evidence tripfags = "authority"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:10:10 2011 No.3202173 >>3202161 Think a little bit harder.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:11:10 2011 No.3202174
File: 28 KB, 409x350, igotthis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3197790
dont be silly, it would only be a lobsided collapse if the top had fallen during the horizontal impact. When beams fail or buckle normally the stuff they support just falls down, dragging anything it hits down with it.

The effect on the subsequent lower beams failing is due to something called shock-loading, where the force produced by the impact of moving masses is greater than the stationary load of the mass

This is all pretty basic engineering/physics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:12:10 2011 No.3202178 >>3202158 human nature combined with extremely effective modern propaganda

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:15:10 2011 No.3202182 >>3202062 actually the energy involved in a plane crash like that and the burning of its fuel has a high calorific value than that bomb

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:17:10 2011 No.3202187
File: 438 KB, 658x737, WTCArticle1993two.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's extremely unlikely that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

It's also extremely unlikely that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed solely due to 1 jet liner crashing into each of them, since this was specifically accounted for in their design by the engineers in charge.

(Pic related, BTW this article is from 1993 so it's not an "after the fact" claim, it's the head structural engineer stating outright that jet liners crashing into the WTC 1 and 2 were specifically accounted for and that this could not cause them to collapse. He also explicitly states that demolitions could bring the tower down, though.

People in this thread have said "ask a civil engineer."

The word of the head engineer of the WTC buildings back in 1993 after the first bombing happened and failed to cause a collapse was that:

1. Basement bomb can't cause collapse.
2. Jet liner impact + fire (he explicitly talks about the fire that would follow).
3. That top demolitions experts, on the other hand, could bring the towers down.

Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:17:10 2011 No.3202188 >>3202174 so where did all of those massive steel beams go? they weren't in a big pile under the fallen building like one would expect from a simple physical collapse....

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:24:10 2011 No.3202199

>>3202187
Please save and distribute this image (do not attempt to post the link to that URL in /sci/ or you will be instantly banned because it mistakes it as a "referral" link) in every discussion on WTC collapse where someone says to "ask civil engineers" or "they didn't account for jet liners hitting the twin towers."

This is the head structural engineer for the WTC buildings, he is more qualified than any random civil engineer on the street with regards to the design and capabilities of the twin tower structures.

8 years before this happened he stated that he specifically designed them to withstand exactly what happened on September 11. This implies the strong possibility of an additional agent on top of impact and the resulting fire contributing to the collapse of the towers, such as demolitions.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:26:10 2011 No.3202205

>>3202188
you're joking right?

Are you trying to imply that the structural supports were removed or atomised? It would be pretty difficult to remove the supports and anything approaching atomisation would require the use of shaped explosive charges for the entire height of the building surrounding the supports (producing a series of explosions more than visible from the outside)

Or are you under the impression that the seperate beams would still be a couple of floors long after the weight of the entire building falls on them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:29:10 2011 No.3202217 /sci/ - tinfoil hats

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:34:10 2011 No.3202229
File: 20 KB, 291x364, HURRRRRRR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3202199
qualificatiosn dont mean shit when we are talking science im afraid. He states it is impossible, the structural physics and engineering community disagree

The weakening of the structure and shock loading of high floors collapsing into lower floor more than explains the failure of the supports throughout the building

But if you have an alternate more plausible theory on how the collision of the planes coincided with the falling of the towers then im sure all here would love to here it.

PS: Believing everything you read leads to the kind of mindless behavior that facilitated these acts of terrorism. Learn the principles for yourself if you doubt of the scientific consensus

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:36:10 2011 No.3202234

>>3202205
> Hasn't even watched the WTC collapses.

Video from NBC of multiple story tall steel beams which appear to turn to dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sv0My2zfFA

Video from CNN of multiple story tall steel beams which appear to turn to dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY

And a closer view from a bystander eyewitness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc&feature=related

Why would you presume he is "joking" about this when their is a multitude of video evidence for it?

Oh because you haven't even looked into this the slightest bit yourself and just take for granted that your already established belief which was fed to you by third parties without any serous inspection of your own must be correct and anyone who disagrees with you is "joking."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:36:10 2011 No.3202236 9/11 WAS AN IMBIBED JOB

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:40:10 2011 No.3202252

>>3202229
Engineering isn't a democracy, majority doesn't = right.

This was the head structural engineer for the WTC towers, and someone who was considered a foremost expert on exactly these kinds of subjects.

The head engineer of: The World Trade Center, Rainier Bank Tower, the Seafirst Building, Seafirst Fifth Avenue Tower, Century Square, Columbia Seafirst Center and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.

VS

Unnamed civil engineers that an anon cannot qualify or quantify in any meaningful way other than "I was told that the majority of engineers agree the official story makes sense!"

Most "civil engineers" have nowhere near the expertise on skyscraper structures as this man, who stated that he specifically designed the structures to withstand exactly the event that occurred in 2001, and who stated this in 1993.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:46:10 2011 No.3202270

>>3202252
> I claim to design a building to withstand a specific event.
> Exactly that event happens. The building doesn't withstand it.
> I couldn't have made a mistake, I'm the expert.
> Therefore all the other experts who reviewed my work are wrong.
> That makes it a giant conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:47:10 2011 No.3202273 >ctrl+f >sheeple >3 of 3 Caution: Tinfoil hat area.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:47:10 2011 No.3202274 So can anyone tell me why a building wouldn't collapse if a plane flew into it?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:48:10 2011 No.3202278

>>3202274
just watch the footage of the buildings collapsing.
look at the plumage of white dust.
i can totally buy a plane knocking a building down, but what can possibly cause all of that material to suddenly dustify? do you know? because i really don't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:49:10 2011 No.3202283 >>3202278 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLFmkGseZ-8 !!! my god man!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:51:10 2011 No.3202286 it seriously looks just like when you blow on a white topped dandelion

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:52:10 2011 No.3202292 beautiful mushroom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybbD9DdVrCE&NR=1

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:56:10 2011 No.3202308

>>3202278
Ive seen the collapse many times, including live. Im not convinced its all dust (there was a lot of smoke that got pulled down when the building fell), we don't know how much actual "dust" dust was in that building to begin with, and the floors had a lot of concrete in them which would have been pulverized just by the force of the fall. Also, there was a large amount of steel that was removed from the sight, obviously it wasn't all atomized. Now I am definitely open to suggestions, but I've not seen any theories that are more plausible then the official one (which is pretty flimsy in the first place)

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:56:10 2011 No.3202309

>>3202252
actually engineering is an applied science, so it pretty much is consensus by the majority. It has to be because everyone makes mistakes, look at the Tacoma Narrows bridge

if someone (even an experienced engineer) makes a proposition that something is "impossible" but dont back it up with the calculations from all applicable principles and the community as a whole (Engineering institutions in this case) calculations dont support that then that person is considered to be wrong

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 02:58:10 2011 No.3202316

>>3202274
The issue we are getting at that not one fucking person has managed to address even after all the replies to this thread is that not only did the buildings that were designed by a team of the worlds best engineers with the lead engineer specifically designing the buildings from the ground up to withstand more than a single plane crash taking completely into regard the fire damage not only failed under the circumstances but failed CATASTROPHICALLY. They didn't just collapse, they VAPORIZED. And everyone in this thread wants to be a backseat engineer and say "Well the buckling of the beams under the shock and the increased load could totally lead to this" not taking into account that a team of people worlds above and beyond your average civil engineer took EXACTLY this scenario into account.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:00:10 2011 No.3202321

>>3202308
just promise me that you will sincerely look into the seismic readings from the moments of collapse. honestly, the readings were very low compared to even convention controlled demolitions. it appears as though less of the buildings struck the earth than should have, not to mention the level of dust created is unacceptably large in any senario.

i don't think it is necessarily important that there is a tightly wrapped explanation that can be bought and sold. i accept that our society mostly trades in these sorts of things, but honestly there are very few true tautologies, and you and i both know that a halfway explanation is no substitute for reality.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:03:10 2011 No.3202327

>>3202278
most of the matterial in the "dust" cloud wasnt dust, it was solid peices of the concrete slabs, because the actual dust produced by impact on these slabs were suspended aswell it is difficult to see the exact composition

It was most certainly mostly dust when these peices hit the ground

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:04:10 2011 No.3202329

>>3202308
> Confirmation bias in action.

"I'm being shown video evidence that contradicts my earlier troll, better start backtracking and change my view from "her der are you joking!" to "I'm not convinced that it completely turned to dust."

Stay classy.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:05:10 2011 No.3202331

>>3202327
>>It was most certainly mostly dust when these pieces hit the ground

this is much needed clarification, my sloppiness of language has overlooked the fact that i am not implying that the majority of material was IMMEDIATELY dust, rather that as it fell through the air it continued to degrade into progressively smaller particles

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:05:10 2011 No.3202332 >>3202329 Uh, that was my first post in this thread, but whatever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:06:10 2011 No.3202335 I don't care, nothing I can do about it and nothing will ever come of it.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:06:10 2011 No.3202337

>>3202252
>Built to withstand an airliner crashing into it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they did stand for quite a while. It was the structural damage, combined with the fact that the fire-resistant coating was blown off of the columns in the explosion, combined with the initial jet fuel blaze causing the later blaze of office materials, that weakened the supports enough to cause the top part of the towers to begin collapsing, which started the chain reaction that brought the towers down entirely.

It's a no-brainer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:06:10 2011 No.3202338 >>3202335 BUT SOMEONE MIGHT BE WRONG ON THE INTERNET!

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:07:10 2011 No.3202344

>>3202335
knowledge is power.
i have actually considered that this whole thing was designed to be a sort of massive classroom; like, here's an opportunity to teach everyone in the world that reality doesn't work quite the way that they think it does.

that's mostly a joke, but seriously: this is a great opportunity to learn something completely novel through observing something that REALLY HAPPENED, honest to god really happened.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:10:10 2011 No.3202355
File: 123 KB, 600x553, likeaboss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3202187
>>3202199
>In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog
Boeing 767s weight about 80% more than 707s

In all fairness you cant expect the guy desiging something in the 60s to accoutn for 2 80s planes flying into it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:13:10 2011 No.3202361 >>3202355 I'm talking about john skilling and he stated this in 1993. The first commercial 747 flight was in 1970.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:13:10 2011 No.3202362 File: 76 KB, 1024x616, Image116..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202355 >>3202337 what you believe happened

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:14:10 2011 No.3202364 File: 125 KB, 1024x571, Image117..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202362 what really happened http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:15:10 2011 No.3202367

>>3202337
>Assuming you have more foresight into the matter then a world renowned engineer who specifically made sure the building could withstand a fire including the fact that fire alone has NEVER ONCE made a building of steel construction buckle under its own weight

Why do people assume they are smarter than people who go to school for years learning all the intricacies of performing daunting tasks like these? The lead engineer specifically states that the building could withstand a fire. Its alot more complicated than " Well a plane hit a building, the building collapsing just makes sense". The building was designed for this. A steel skyscraper has never collapsed in such a manner in history. The building didn't just collapse, it turned into powder. Does none of this seem fishy to you? I am honestly asking? Do you really think that it isn't possible that some things don't add up here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:17:10 2011 No.3202374 >>3202331 when concrete hits a surface at 40-80m/s it pretty much becomes dust

>>	P Fri Jun 10 03:18:10 2011 No.3202384 >>3202355 That's incorrect. Check the speed he designed it for, and check the speed of the plane that crashed into the tower.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:19:10 2011 No.3202386

>>3202367
Things don't add up all the time in real life. All we know for sure is that both towers got hit by planes, started fires, and then collapsed/"turned into dust". Sure you can say it was some directed energy beam or a wave gun, but you have no actual proof of that, just conjecture. Everyone in this thread is acting like a god damned theist.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:20:10 2011 No.3202387
File: 34 KB, 413x600, snowball..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3202374
that simply didn't happen.
the seismic evidence from that day shows quite the contrary. rather than huge chunks of concrete hitting the ground and exploding a significant amount of mass simply did not strike the earth with a hard enough force that would be expected.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

>>	P Fri Jun 10 03:20:10 2011 No.3202389 >>3202355 And remember that Kinetic Energy has a velocity squared term whereas mass is not squared. I read Skillings whitepaper awhile back. The kinetic energy he designed it for was more than the kinetic energy of actual impact, despite a larger plane.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:20:10 2011 No.3202392
File: 20 KB, 200x200, george.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> event occurs
> a few details seem out of place
> come up with brand-new overly-complicated theory that explains only these few details while ignoring the majority of the evidence as well as common sense AND/OR claim that the official story is false without even bothering to present a complete and consistent alternate theory

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:21:10 2011 No.3202395
File: 26 KB, 360x450, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3202362
not what i believe at all, floors arnt solid blocks of mass, they are destructible concrete plaster and furnishing. As they slam into each other the lighter and uncontained parts would be flug upwards and/or outwards due to collision

nice try tho

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:21:10 2011 No.3202397 File: 126 KB, 450x373, 127679019737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202362 >>3202364 the OP's post is about WTC 7 you know the building that wasn't hit by planes but collapsed because of fire.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:21:10 2011 No.3202398 >>3202384 Did he design it with the assumption that the plane would be going full speed though?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:21:10 2011 No.3202399 >>3202386 no one is held to the energy weapon hypothesis. it is just a thought device. we are talking about the dustification phenomena which cannot be dismissed simply because one does not have an adequate theory to express it.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:21:10 2011 No.3202393
File: 19 KB, 500x375, 1291706534023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>MFW nobody can explain at all the spire of steel that turns into dust right before everyones eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4

Come at me brahs. I fucking dare you

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:22:10 2011 No.3202401 >>3202367 It didn't "turn into powder". I don't know where you get the idea that it did.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:23:10 2011 No.3202402 >>3202387 the slabs were only evere about a meter square, they need to break in order to become free from their housing You seem to be under the impression that the building was solid concrete

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:23:10 2011 No.3202403 >>3202398 No, he designed it with the assumption that the plane would be going slow, and low on fuel, as it would be if it were on approach to a nearby airport.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:24:10 2011 No.3202404

I've been laughing at 9/11 conspiracy theorists for years, but this ray gun theory is new to me.

It's actually kind of funny how you guys keep trying SO HARD to come up with alternate scenarios every time the official story is shown to be infinitely more likely than your last alternate scenario. Next you'll be telling us that you have incontrovertible proof that it was aliens who blew up the towers, and you'll use the color of the dust (or something equally stupid) as your key piece of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:24:10 2011 No.3202405 >>3202399 I am not dismissing it, but what do we have to compare it too?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:24:10 2011 No.3202407 File: 7 KB, 232x213, ancientaliens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202367

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:25:10 2011 No.3202410

You fucking morons still talk about physical evidence after a decade. Missiles, towers collapsing, building 7. When will any of you realize that you will never get anywhere with this? At the very least, you can make a convincing argument by looking at the foreknowledge (Bojinka as a starting point), the motives for invading, oil politics...etc. Hell, read up on the politics between 1979 and 2001 before you even attempt anything.

I've written a book on the topic and I believe that the government let it happen just like we KNOW Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen, but you people still insist on regurgitating the same shit that gets you nowhere and it's frustrating. I have a bookcase full of books on US Middle East relations and oil politics, and hundreds of pages of official documents. Do some real research.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:26:10 2011 No.3202412

>>3202386
Now you are attempting to critique what I am saying by being insulting. I never claimed there was an energy weapon or something of that sort. I am saying you need to realize that what happened on 9/11 wasn't what should have happened. And it hasn't happened ever on any other occasion. You all think you are speaking of the rule when they fact that 2 planes reduced 3 towers to dust is actually extremely outlandish. The side of reason stands to say that you should be backing up your side of the argument with something because what people accept to have occurred and what actually did don't add up

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:27:10 2011 No.3202416 >>3202393 The video shows dust coming off the steel, but it still looks solid when it disappears into the dust cloud. The video isn't really good quality though.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:27:10 2011 No.3202417

schema is:
Event, origin time (EDT in hours:minutes:seconds), Magnitude
(equivalent seismic), Duration

Impact 1 at North Tower, 08:46:26±1, 0.9 , 12 seconds
Impact 2 at South Tower, 09:02:54±2, 0.7, 6 seconds
Collapse 1 of South Tower, 09:59:04±1, 2.1,10 seconds
Collapse 2 of North Tower, 10:28:31±1, 2.3, 8 seconds

For the following, I used the height of WTC1 as 1368 feet and considered each floor to be a height of 12.44 feet.
(1368/110 =12.44 ft/floor). I assumed gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2 or 9.81 m/sec2.

If the WTC had 425,000 cubic yards of lightweight concrete (72% the weight of normal concrete), then there were 631,000 (?) tons of concrete in the complex. This is a crude cross-check on the weight of the towers and the WTC and suggests that 500,000 tons is not an exaggeration.
Note: 425,000 yd3 x 33 (ft3/yd3)x (110)lb/ft3 x (ton/2,000 lbs)= 631,125 tons
Assuming this value is for both towers, one tower would be 316,000 tons.

just look at the fucking numbers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:28:10 2011 No.3202420 >>3202384 if you are trying to make the point that at 1.35x speed the kinetic energy is equal you are neglecting the additional stationary mass that would strain the structure

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:29:10 2011 No.3202427 >>3202401 see >>3202393 Turned into powder. In plain sight. I dare you to rebut.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:29:10 2011 No.3202429 >>3202412 >disregard missiles acquire planes

P Fri Jun 10 03:29:10 2011 No.3202430

>>3202398

He designed it for a speed that as higher than what hit the towers, and the corresponding increase in kinetic energy, if I remember correctly, was about 20% more with the 707. I support the idea that the US let it happen, but the building collapse is not important. I also crunched the numbers, as an engineer, to see if the fire would be hot enough to melt or significantly weaken steel in the worst case scenario. It isn't, but either case is still possible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:32:10 2011 No.3202436 >>3202412 You're absolutely right. Let's compare this event to what we've observed typically happens when you crash a commercial airliner at high speed into a skyscraper. OH WAIT.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:33:10 2011 No.3202444 >>3202393 No responses to this I see. Thats what I thought. You naysayers that something is a miss here will bitch and bitch and bitch but nobody has an explanation for this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:34:10 2011 No.3202446 >>3202436 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 no collapse

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:35:10 2011 No.3202452

>>3202389
That's because a world renowned engineer didn't go:

"Herp derp I'm designing the tallest skyscraper in the world, I better design it to withstand exactly the size of plane of a 707 because no larger plane will ever exist!"

No, he designed it to withstand a significantly larger impact than the largest plane at the time could provide, which is why he was confident enough to talk about how they could survive impacts from jet liners in 1993, over 20 years after 747s started flying commercially.

>>	P Fri Jun 10 03:35:10 2011 No.3202453 >>3202420 A tighter mass at higher speed might also have greater penetration into the building than a larger mass traveling at a lower speed. >>3202403 That comes from the wrong paper. The building was designed for a plane with a much higher speed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:36:10 2011 No.3202455 File: 84 KB, 300x300, mythbusters-lede-md.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Time to get some old skyscrapers... and some surplus 707's?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:36:10 2011 No.3202456

>>3202430
> melt

No one who knew what they were talking about ever claimed that the steel was at any point liquified by the fires.

Add heat to metal, however, and it softens. If there's tons of structural damage, and the metal is softened, well...

Let's put it this way. Even if your assumptions are right, and even if it's true that the temperatures COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been high enough to weaken the metal AT ALL, you can't get a perfect answer by "crunching the numbers." The twin towers cannot be perfectly modeled by whatever equations you're using. Every calculation you could possibly do is an approximation, and I bet you didn't even bother to estimate what the errors/uncertainties might be.

> inb4 someone replies without knowing what I mean by "error" and "uncertainty"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:36:10 2011 No.3202457 File: 9 KB, 221x275, 1306983461437..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417 >>3202417

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:36:10 2011 No.3202458 >>3202430 50% weakened isn't significant?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:37:10 2011 No.3202460 File: 73 KB, 795x410, Bijlmerramp2_without_link.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202446 Are you fucking kidding me?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:39:10 2011 No.3202463 >>3202458 Of course not, do you believe that the twin tower was designed to collapse if you added 50% to its weight and the wind started blowing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:39:10 2011 No.3202464 >>3202460 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsxIMNM5S4 ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:40:10 2011 No.3202468 >>3202463 > implying that metal weakened by 50% is equivalent to adding 50% more weight to the towers I hope you're trolling.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:40:10 2011 No.3202469 >>3202463 you would have to double the weight bro...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:40:10 2011 No.3202471 you detractors all have fucking theories but look at the fucking video and tell me what you see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isTTUaawGBU what the fuck is that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:42:10 2011 No.3202474 let's say I have a butane lighter (1350C blue flame).. and heat a 1 ton steel pillar... how long will it take for that steel to weaken by 10%?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:43:10 2011 No.3202476

What can you prove with simple models of an enormously complex situation?

Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot,
to a store (10 miles away), then
to the bank (5 more miles), then
to the dog track (7 more miles), then
to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, I could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated. You don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken me to run that distance. Nor do you need to prove how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove my story, you only need to show that the story I gave you is not physically possible.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:43:10 2011 No.3202478

>>3197748

>this building was bombed and caught fire but it did not collapse.

The WTC 7 building in New York which was built with a better foundation caught fire and collapsed, but it wasn't bombed or hit by planes.

i'm not truther, but it's obvious wtc 7 was an express demolition.

I think it's funny that they are americans who are instinctively in denial because they don't think people in their country can be that evil.

They're countless examples in history of people ordering and instituting mass killings deceptively to implement and achieve agendas. Why would Americans be the exception?

Humans beings lie and kill each other all the time, why would humans beings in american corporations and government be exempt from human nature?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:44:10 2011 No.3202481 >>3202471 Looks like a shit load of concrete getting pulverized by a falling building to me. What, was I supposed to see everything your way?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:45:10 2011 No.3202483

>>3202474

You can easily do the calculation yourself with a few simplifying assumptions and some additional information such as the specific heat of the material and the power output of the lighter (energy over time for you ignorant folks).

But it won't be relevant because your analogy is bogus.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:45:10 2011 No.3202484

>>3202468
> Implying that the fires uniformly heated all the steel in the entire WTC structure so that the structure itself as a whole was at 50% integrity.

I hope you're trolling.

The steel would not have been uniformly heated, and would not have gotten as hot as the fire itself in the same rooms as the fires, which did not permeate the entire WTC structure in the first place, let alone the whole structure.

Do you use any critical thinking skills whatsoever?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:46:10 2011 No.3202486 File: 42 KB, 298x291, 6549w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3202478 >This building was bombed and caught fire but it did not collapse. your welcome

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:47:10 2011 No.3202487
File: 98 KB, 703x484, WTC-A1-150..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3202476
Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report states, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, .... The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud."

So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation or destruction sequence.

Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.

In the picture (at right), notice that WTC2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.

So, how could the ground rumble for only 8 seconds while WTC1 "disappeared?"

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:47:10 2011 No.3202488

>>3202481
Of course not, it's good that you've looked at it and drawn a conclusion you see as reasonable even though I disagree with you and contend that the forms disintegrating in that video are steel and not concrete. I can agree to disagree with you since at least you thought about it.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:47:10 2011 No.3202490
File: 382 KB, 1824x1109, BUTTHURT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>YFW all the detractors in this thread have been hit with hard evidence that they can't get around and are attempting to claim everyone is a crazy conspiracy theorist because they can't back up their shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:48:10 2011 No.3202491 >>3202481 i would love you to tell me how concrete pulverises itself as it falls. it's not a matter of opinion. i am presenting you with numbers. they're in this thread.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:48:10 2011 No.3202492

>>3202478

If there were bombs in WTC7, and possibly other buildings, in addition to the plane impacts, why couldn't the terrorists who flew the planes be responsible?

It's not that I really believe any of this shit, but I'm curious about why you people always go from "hmm, this is odd" to "holy shit everything is opposite like Bizarro world"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:49:10 2011 No.3202495 Because there's no thermate bombs planted all around the structure.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:50:10 2011 No.3202497

>>3202483
what do you mean my analogy is bogus?
If I take a butane lighter and apply it to a 1 ton steel beam, how long will it take for it to weaken by 10%?
That's a very specific question which I haven't drawn any specific analogy to yet. If anything I'm comparing heating steel to heating steel, analogy is a bad choice of words.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:51:10 2011 No.3202498
File: 44 KB, 601x400, bwMushroom..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This part of the building surely took a lot longer to hit the ground as dust than it would have if it came down as larger pieces of material. We know that sheets of paper have a very high surface-area-to-mass ratio and will stay aloft for long periods of time, which is why paper is an excellent material for making toy airplanes. The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did. In the above picture, there are a few tire tracks through the dust, but not many, so it was probably taken shortly after one (or both) of the towers were down. Also, the people in the picture look like they've just come out of hiding, curious to see what just happened and to take pictures. If there had been a strong wind blowing the dust around, it would blow the paper away before it would have blown the dust onto the paper. So, the fact that much of the randomly-oriented paper is covered with dust indicates the relative aerodynamic properties of this dust.

In a conventional controlled-demolition, a building's supports are knocked out and the building is broken up as it slams to the ground. In a conventional controlled-demolition, gravity is used to break up the building. Here, it seems that the only use of gravity was to get the dust out of the air.

In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The destruction of all seven WTC buildings and especially WTC1 and WTC2 may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:52:10 2011 No.3202499 >>3202491 Its not pulverizing itself, its being pulverized by the building material that is falling on it from above.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:52:10 2011 No.3202500 >>3202498 fucking read it! http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html read it!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:53:10 2011 No.3202501 >>3202498 Gravometric manipulation. You think they don't have this shit already?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:54:10 2011 No.3202502
File: 2.15 MB, 1680x1050, 1292299876748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>MFW every detractor in this thread is coming up with bullshit things that the skeptics "believe" like laser wave guns, earthquake generators, thermite bombs, etc when the only people to mention such nonsense ITT are the detractors themselves.

We don't claim to know what happened. We are simply saying what we are told isn't the truth

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:54:10 2011 No.3202503 >301 posts and 47 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:54:10 2011 No.3202504

>>3202499
how does that make any sense at all? you are implying that material above is falling faster than material below, which is contrary to the way we know gravity works, unless of course there is ANOTHER force that is applying the additional energy, which of course i agree with.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:56:10 2011 No.3202507

>>3202495
"Bomb" isn't the right way to describe this demolitions technology:

" “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”

(Gash et al 2002)."

Before september 11 construction was done to encase asbestos coating. If they encased nano thermite instead of asbestos coating you would get a controlled demoltion without "explosives" in the common sense of the word, but instead "cutting" and "disintegration."

This is an advanced form of thermite, and not "explosive" other than that it will self propagate given thermal stimulation.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:56:10 2011 No.3202508

>>3202504
> implying that one thing falling faster than another violates the laws of physics

Did the material above start falling first?

Falling objects accelerate at the same rate; they don't have to fall at the same speed at all times.

Not analyzing the video for you because the quality is shit and I have better things to do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:57:10 2011 No.3202509 >>3202507 this is not thermite. thermite does not cause concrete and steel to evaporate into nanomicron sized particles while at the same time leaving paper completely untouched.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:57:10 2011 No.3202511

>>3202504 ANOTHER force
If you're bringing a building down with explosives you don't put some in it that goes off in random chunks once the collapse is underway. There's a much simpler force at work, think about why a hammer and a feather fall at the same speed on the moon but not on earth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:58:10 2011 No.3202512 >>3202508 listen: how can the material falling after other material pulverise it? obviously it can't. it's not a question of the velocity at which something falls, acceleration is what is constant.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:58:10 2011 No.3202515
File: 24 KB, 494x499, 1210750332449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Listen guys, stop being a nuisance and just accept the official story already. This shit is really old and it won't solve anything. Nobody's going to comeback to life, nobody is going to be cured of their life-threatening illness (insanity doesn't count) and none of this is going to help our economy when you are proven wrong. ALL YOU'RE DOING IS HURTING AMERICA BY NOT SUPPORTING IT!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:59:10 2011 No.3202516 >>3202509 NanoThermate does. You wouldn't believe the stuff the government has, they have stuff the size of a biscuit that could melt a car.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:59:10 2011 No.3202517

DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:59:10 2011 No.3202519

>>3202511
there. were. no. explosives.
nanothermite and/or nuclear explosives do not turn steel into powder in the way that we observe from the video.

we must engineer our hypotheses backwards from the visual, seismic, and structural evidence, not our own prejudices.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 03:59:10 2011 No.3202521 >>3202515 Nice try, who's paying you?!?! Uncle Sam, that's right!!

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:00:10 2011 No.3202524

>>3202504
No, listen to me for a sec. The top of the building is collapsing into the part of the building that is still standing. So yes, the top is falling faster then the bottom, because the bottom hasn't started falling yet. In many of the videos you can see dust coming out of the windows, while the outer shell still remains intact, which means the core of the building is falling inside of the structure. By the time you see dust fly out of the building, the point of the collapse is already below it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:02:10 2011 No.3202531 >>3202515 then try to prove what has been brought to the table wrong. Do you honestly not have a problem with your government potentially lying to you? Just saying to drop the issue is a pretty weak argument don't you think?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:02:10 2011 No.3202527 >>3202524 The dust coming out of the windows (known as squibs by the truth community) is evidence of the explosives going off.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:02:10 2011 No.3202528

>>3202516
no it doesn't.
seriously: this is a very important point.
thermitic reactions are a specific class of exothermic reactions which create a large amount of energy via the exchange of a metal ions, once activated by some sort of energetic mechanism usually burning magnesium oxide.
i assure you that thermal energy is not specifically the force at play here, rather it is some other sort of energetic effect which affects the electromagnetic bonds of complex compounds, specifically metals in this case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:03:10 2011 No.3202532 >>3202527 to pattern of the dust is too uneven to be squibs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:03:10 2011 No.3202533 >>3202515 agreed. conspiracies are bullshit. evidence, however, is part of science, and science is what we use to come to terms with reality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:04:10 2011 No.3202536 >>3202533 says the person with no evidence

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:04:10 2011 No.3202537

>>3202528
Just because it isn't known to the public that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, look up black projects, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't know how it works, it could well do electromagnetic destruction too but the fact is it is a substance well outside your remit to comment on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:05:10 2011 No.3202541 >>3202536 listen, there are dozens of videos and many books also real numbers about the masses of the buildings. please look at what is actually here before you say something so obtuse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:05:10 2011 No.3202543 >>3202536 One mans evidence is another mans coincidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:06:10 2011 No.3202546 >>3202541 says the person being obtuse

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:07:10 2011 No.3202549

>>3202537
i agree: i think the root cause of this is very mysterious.
BUT IT IS NOT THE RESULT OF A THERMITIC REACTION

I personally believe that whatever the cause, it was due to the interferences of two or more standing waves directed at the buildings and set to harmonically oscillate the steel beams, effectively oscillating them with close enough but interfering frequencies to eventually cause the matter to basically disintegrate.

we are on the same team, but i promise you that the destruction was not chemical. it was energetic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:07:10 2011 No.3202550 >>3202536 There is a metric fuckton of evidence posted in this thread and the harder evidence posted hours ago still hasn't been rebutted. Try learning how to read, retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:09:10 2011 No.3202552 >>3202549 That actually makes a lot of sense but the fact is there were large chunks molten metal found, could these standing waves have caused that? Also, lava was seen to flow from the building. I assumed that was just NanoThermate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:09:10 2011 No.3202554 >>3202550 try learning how to make an argument and actually state a premise to stand behind instead of making general statements. THE UNIVERSE IS FULL OF WONDER PROVE ME WRONG!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:12:10 2011 No.3202561 >>3202550 IT'S A GREAT DAY TODAY, SCIENCE REQUIRES EVIDENCE

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:13:10 2011 No.3202565 >>3202552 SOMETHING was seen to have flowed out of the towers. We assume it was molten metal but there's not much proof either way. And if it is molten metal, we can not be sure it is steel.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:13:10 2011 No.3202566

>>3202552
while there is some evidence to suggest that there was indeed molten metal at the site of the wtc, i am not convinced that this is the result of the building collapse but rather it is misplaced chronologically, being the result of the cleanup efforts (like the infamous angle cut column photo)

but the people who are playing the thermite card have a lot on the line, that frankly most people have no idea about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52uWQCqQ0A
steven jones is not on our team.

this is a good blog that has a lot of info about this
http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:13:10 2011 No.3202568 >>3202550 DIDN'T BRING ANY ARGUMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S EVIDENCE, JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! BUILDINGS FALL THEREFORE SCIENCE

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:18:10 2011 No.3202576

>>3202568
>>3202561
>>3202554
Seriously, you're samefagging now? Were you that offended by being called a retard on the internet? Scroll up. Keep scrolling. Notice the links that have been posted from engineers on the towers. Notice the well researched book. Notice the links to the arguments of the seismic activities. I am not gonna fucking hold your hand, its all there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:24:10 2011 No.3202590 >>3202576 no I'm ~offended~ by your ~offering~ which is just an invitation to read a bunch of yeah somethings somewheres... fucking terrific presentation patriot!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:24:10 2011 No.3202591 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhdbU2sA8gE steven jones has anti-free energy agenda

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:32:10 2011 No.3202615 >>3202524 seriously man, the whole thing is explained right here: complete with numbers. http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:38:10 2011 No.3202639

Appendix A: For those concerned about momentum.
Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

Conservation of Momentum:

The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.
p = mv

where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity.
If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.
(m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.
If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.
So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

____________________________________

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

(m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

(m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:39:10 2011 No.3202644
File: 37 KB, 259x499, pic3..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Conservation of Energy:

In elastic collisions, the sum of kinetic energy before a collision must equal the sum of kinetic energy after the collision. Conservation of kinetic energy is given by the following formula:

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (1/2)(m1 * v21)f + (1/2)(m2 * v22)f + (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports)
where (Pulverize) is the energy required to pulverize a floor and (Fail Floor Supports) is the energy required to fail the next floor.

If (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports), there well be no momentum transfer.
In reality, (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i < (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

So, for conservation of energy, we must assume there is some additional energy such that,

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i + (Additional Energy) = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

where (Additional Energy) is the additional amount of energy needed to have the outcome we observed on 9/11/01.

Top

Appendix B: Assuming elastic collisions:

Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

(m1 * v1)i = (m2 * v2)f

If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.

Anonymous Fri Jun 10 04:41:10 2011 No.3202648
File: 854 KB, 1024x668, 010913_5316..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So, if motion must be restarted at every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, if any. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

This is a view from West Street, looking east across the remains of WTC1. FEMA entered this photo on 9/13/01, which is the earliest date for any posts for the 9/11 event. Other photos they have for 9/13/01 show much more people and equipment present. So, it is believed that this photo was taken on 9/11/01, but entered into their files on 9/13. Where did the building go?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 10 16:11:10 2011 No.3205014 bump

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