9/11

[Anonymous No.4981680]

I don't care for conspiracies and all that bullshit. I want the science. Is it possible for a jet plane to melt the steel supportive structure of a building? Was the weight of each floor enough to cause a pan cake effect on a building? I want science on this topic.

[Anonymous No.4981681]

>>4981680
Yes. It's possible. It happened.

[Anonymous No.4981701]

>>4981681
based on the research you have done on this topic, what gives you this opinion?

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981707]

what i wonder myself is just how easy it would be to convince a community of something other then the truth just by labeling it a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.4981719]

>>4981680 melt the steel
Steel doesn't work like you are probably imagining. It doesn't need to reach the melting point to lose most of its strength. It gets progressively softer the hotter it gets.

The truthers who say the tower couldn't have collapsed because the steel couldn't have reached the 1500 degree melting point are operating under a completely false premise.

[Anonymous No.4981720]

>>4981701
Scientists work with the very bold assumption that if something happened, then the this thing must have been possible at some point. That was probably the meaning of the post you were answering to.

[Anonymous No.4981724]

The big issue is that the strength of steel radically decreases when it gets hot, that's why it lost all its structural integrity.

[Anonymous No.4981725]

>>4981719
I would add that temperature isn't the only relevant factor you have to take into account when it comes to melting points. Pressure also plays a role.

[Anonymous No.4981727]

>>4981719
Exactly

[Anonymous No.4981728]

>Is it possible for a jet plane to melt the steel supportive structure of a building?
No, however it is entirely possible for jet fuel burning over the course of an hour to cause the steel to soften to the point where the structure can no longer compensate for the damage it took after a large impact and blast.
>Was the weight of each floor enough to cause a pan cake effect on a building?
No, not at all. To cause a pancake effect requires the coordinated destruction of a buildings support structure, hence the claims of a controlled demolition. However, due to the aforementioned weakening of the structure, the collapse of the buildings entire top sections as one onto the lower levels was enough to overcome the remaining structural integrity and send the building pancaking down from the top.

[Anonymous No.4981748]

>>4981728

based on the research i have done (op here), which is not at all biased, the planes did not hit the top. Also how can people explain the multiple explosions and direct cut support beams.granted, these questions don't relate to my original questions. Based on science, how is it possible for so much evidence to lean towards the US causing this. (my opinion, based on research)

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981757]

>>4981748
I suggest you turn away from this and never look back.

[sage No.4981759]

>>4981748
Is English your second language?

[Anonymous No.4981768]

http://www.ae911truth.org/
I'd like to see someone try to disprove these engineers

[Anonymous No.4981778]

>>4981759
no i just dont fucking care about trying to correct it, or think about it because im too drunk. I'm sure you can understand)
>>4981757
Why? i want truth, and i ant science from it.

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981786]

>>4981778
no intelligent person can look at the evidence and come to the idea that they were not brought down intentionally. This does not matter, nobody cares, nobody will side with you. Run.

[Anonymous No.4981792]

Jet fuel burns real hot, hot flames weaken metal beams, building collapses under it's own weight case closed

[Anonymous No.4981795]

Suitcase nukes obviously, too much cognitive dissonance for most to handle. They can't handle the truth. lol

[Anonymous No.4981799]

>>4981786
I will never run. Not so long as nobody knows who i am bro. The truth will be mine.

[Anonymous No.4981805]

forget the steel melting

how do you explain hole in the pentagon that in no way matches the plane that was supposed to have struck it

[Anonymous No.4981807]

For a very long time, I did not believe in any conspiracies surrounding 9/11. My rational mind was fighting back and I just ignored people who were saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Then, as years passed and as more 9/11 Commission members started saying that they were muzzled, I started to come around and look at all the evidence.

If 9/11 was a conspiracy, my money was on Bush/Cheney and when I heard others say that "it's the jews, stupid", I immediately assumed they were neo-nazis or some stuff like that.

But then 4 days ago, someone here posted this link and I decided to read this article and it completely opened my eyes:

http://www.theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367

(read this article and check every reference... all of them are from credible sources and many times from Israeli sources).

Then, after researching some more, I came across this guy:

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, a USMC Vietnam vet, an American of Jewish ancestry:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/19/22329/

I am now terrified about what I've learned :( What does anon think... are some truths too dangerous to know??? I wanna take the BLUE pill :(

[Anonymous No.4981808]

what about the buildings that fell that were never hit by anything

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.4981811]

>Is it possible for a jet plane to melt the steel supportive structure of a building?
No, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt structural steel. The fires present in both the North and South tower as well as Bulding 7 were, however, more than hot enough to significantly weaken the steel supports - steel melts at ~1400 C, but it loses half its strength at a little over 500 C, and almost 90% of its strength at just 800 C. It also would have lead to thermal expansion of the beams, floor grids, and other support structures leading to warping and buckling of the building's skeleton. These two effects were enough to exacerbate the existing damage to the building structure caused by the airliner/debris impacts and eventually triggered the collapse.

>Was the weight of each floor enough to cause a pan cake effect on a building?
Not exactly. One often quoted claim submitted by conspiracy theorists is that the towers' support structures were designed to, in theory, support 20-times the empty weight (or deadweight) of all the floors above a given level. This is true, but the force imparted by the collapsing mass and the stresses experienced by the surviving support far exceeded what the building was designed to support. As more and more of the structure became weakened and damaged during the collapse it was able to offer less and less resistance against the collapsing mass.

[Anonymous No.4981812]

>>4981792

It hit near the top. and not on all sides. Wouldn't it just fall off to one side?

[Anonymous No.4981817]

>>4981812
It's not a fucking tree where you can whack it and shout "timmmmbeeerrr" as it falls off to one side. It's a fucking 110 story steel frame skyscraper

[Anonymous No.4981824]

>>4981811
(op) This second theory implies time would be relevant, so how can this be true when the deconstruction of the building(s) was faster than gravity?

[Anonymous No.4981828]

>>4981811
I like how you remain neutral and calm when posting while offering only factual evidence.

[Anonymous No.4981834]

>>4981817
I don't mean the entire structure, i mean the areas it hit. Wouldn't it cave in, and fall in to the damaged area? not just pan cake. It seems very convenient that all support beams melted to the same degree, to create an exact replica of a deconstruction?

[Anonymous No.4981836]

>>4981824

[Anonymous No.4981845]

>>4981824

This is so stupid it's hard to even call it wrong.

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981853]

>>4981845
well actually you see while his post contains a technical inaccuracy, it is spot on as far as the concept is concerned. using a technical inaccuracy as means to disregard something is entirely typical.

[Anonymous No.4981856]

>>4981845
I respect your opinion. But. Based on the research you have done the topic. What tells you i'm wrong?

[Anonymous No.4981861]

>>4981853
Well, sometimes its hard distinguishing nonsense from bad wording.

>And this is why communication is important kids.

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981862]

>>4981856
you are pretty fucking stupid though. maybe just drunk.

[Anonymous No.4981870]

>>4981862
I am horribly drunk. i am not stupid, but i am not smart! omg mind freeeeeezzee ... just kidding. All drunken jokes aside. Can you please give me a fucking real answer that doesn't involve you telling me how stupid i am?>

[DK_^&& !eXVf.ThsJg No.4981873]

>>4981870
...


*sigh*

[Anonymous No.4981878]

I'm a bit confused because you seem incapable of wording anything cogently, but you are trying to make the "how did the tower fall faster than or at free fall (I find it adorable when this is phrased as 'the speed of gravity' by the way) if they were not a controlled demolition" argument?

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.4981879]

>>4981824
>how can this be true when the deconstruction of the building(s) was faster than gravity?
It wasn't.

Each collapse can be broken down into four different "phases" during the collapse

Phase 1 - The initial collapse. Here only the damaged sections of the building are able to offer resistance. The acceleration of the collapsing mass is a little bit less than free-fall.
Phase 2 - The collapsing mass begins encountering undamaged floors. The rate of acceleration decreases.
Phase 3 - As the momentum of the collapsing mass and damage to the surviving support structure increases, the skeleton is able to offer less resistance. The acceleration of the collapsing mass increases, eventually approaching free fall.
Phase 4 - The collapsing mass begins to collide with the remaining floors and debris near ground level and decelerates.

At no point did the acceleration during any of these phases reach or exceed free fall, and we can easily calculate the average acceleration over the course of the collapse in both towers. The collapse of the North Tower took roughly 11 seconds, the South Tower about 9. The collapse of the North tower began at around 95rd floor (~355 m), the South tower at about the 80th (~300 m)

a = 2d/t^2

a(North) = 2(355 m)/(11 s)^2 = 5.87 m/s^2 = 0.60 G
a(South) = 2(300 m)/(9 s)^2 = 7.41 m^s^2 = 0.76 G


Physics: It's not just a good idea - IT'S THE LAW!

[Anonymous No.4981886]

>>4981873

mate you arnt giving me, or anyone else here real answers. Fuck off to /b/ or contribute to the conversation. Stop being a fucking wanker for once in your life and realize not everyone is as 'smart' as you bro.

[Anonymous No.4981900]

>>4981879
>Physics: It's not just a good idea - IT'S THE LAW!
Damn skippy

[Anonymous No.4981903]

>>4981878
mate, insult me all you want, just try to understand there are people who arnt as smart as you, and these kind of people just want want scientific answers to questions. ffs why is everyone an asshole? I dont get it? maybe i should have just asked that.

[Anonymous No.4981909]

>>4981903
We have schools for that. You might have heard of it.

[Anonymous No.4981925]

>>4981909

wtf are you on about now? just fucking give me and some confused lurkers a decent answer. Stop 'trolling' this isnt the place for it eh.

[Anonymous No.4981929]

>>4981925
see
>>4981879

[Anonymous No.4981946]

>>4981879
And 1 plane hitting a building is enough to cause THAT much damage to even sides of a building? and the "shock wave" is enough to cause the same effect to building 7?

[Anonymous No.4981947]

>>4981903
He wasn't insulting you in that post.

Remember, you're drunk.

[Anonymous No.4981949]

>>4981946
I don't get the scepticism. Do you question your priest about god and creation of earth too?

[Anonymous No.4981953]

>>4981946
see
>>4981811
The plane just caused the initial damage, the aftermath (structural weakening, thermal expansion, etc) exacerbated that and caused the collapse.

There was no "shockwave". The damage to Building 7 was caused by debris from the collapsing towers (and by debris I mean giant fucking chunks of skyscraper). Like the other towers, the debris impact didn't cause the collapse, the fire damage did.

[Anonymous No.4981958]

>>4981949
I'm an atheist.

[Anonymous No.4981967]

>>4981946
Building 7 was hit by pieces of the North Tower collapsing. That's what they say anyway.

[Anonymous No.4981968]

>>4981953
I see I see. Like i said i was never with the conspiracy tin foil wearing nut jobs, i just want facts!
ty to all who helped :)

[Anonymous No.4981972]

>>4981879

thats all real neat, and ill let you have the argument on the grounds that the two buildings that were hit by a plane, yet can you explain how that one building (building seven i think) that didnt even get touched by a plane did the exact same thing?

[Anonymous No.4981980]

>>4981972
see
>>4981953

[Anonymous No.4982019]

On an unrelated appreciation.

Whats /sci/ opinion on the very clean looking cuts on the parking floor beams? Looks like they used thermite

[Anonymous No.4982021]

>>4982019
Cutting torches used during the recovery and decommission.

[Anonymous No.4982058]

PROTIP:

The towers didn't collapse because the steel became too weak from being heated.

What happened is the steel expanded from being heated. This expansion caused the joints to pop, which is where the collapse started.

[Anonymous No.4982065]

>2012
>People still thinking aerial velocity and a limited volume of burning hydrocarbons can melt steel

[Anonymous No.4982068]

"All the (intelligence services) of America and Europe know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq and Afghanistan."

- Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga

Its downright depressing to see faggots that think they can science saying it was not a controlled demolition when the towers were specifically built to withstand multiple impacts from a 707

[Anonymous No.4982071]

>>4981719
heat transfer into large structures of steel doesn't work like you are imagining, large steel beams do not match the temperature of a fire in its proximity.

the fire was not hot enough to melt steel, but the issue isn't so much that the steel couldn't have "melted" from the fires, the issue is that the low temperature open air fires could not have superheated the actual steel enough to cause structural failure.

in the cardington fire experiments, the steel supports were directly heated to 1000 degrees celsius (much hotter than the FIRE in the WTC buildings, and WAY more hot than the STEEL in the WTC buildings), even despite the heat curves weakening the integrity of the steel far more than the WTC fires could have, the cardington structures maintained, in no instance did any structure tested collapse.

cardington experiment wasn't an exact replica of 9/11, and it was done before 9/11, but it's still pretty condemning when you consider how much more heated the steel in the experiment was than the steel in the WTC could have been, and when you consider that even if a few of the steel beams did get super hot and lose integrity

If you have a fire raging in a room, the steel holding the room up is not the same temperature as said fire, it's cold by comparison to the actual flame. the actual flames were well below the melting point of steel, the actual steel was well below the temperatures needed to disable it

experimentation suggests that even when you weaken steel structure to below 10% integrity (by directly heating it to 1000 degrees celsius across the base of 100% of all support structures for hours on end), it holds up easily despite only having 1/10 of its original strength.

so it SOUNDS convincing to say "steel loses x% of integrity as you heat it up!", but experimentation suggests that these supports would hold the building up anyway.

[Anonymous No.4982076]

>towers bult specifically to withstand multiple impacts from a 707
>people going the mental gymnastics to somehow come to the conclusion it was not a controlled demolition

Mfw

[Anonymous No.4982085]

>>4981719
According to this graph, the structural steel would have gained strength until heated past 700 degrees, at which point it would begin losing strength.

If the fires were burning at 700-900 degrees celsius, the steel would have been cooler than the fires after only 1 hour of burning (WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not burn much longer than an hour). The yellow line in your graph reaches to nearly 140% integrity at ~550 degrees.

When you consider that the steel was not even close to as hot as the already low temperature fires in the building (kerosene and office detritus), it would appear that its integrity was above 100%. Only at nearly 800 degrees, according to your graph, does structural steel begin to weaken below its room temperature integrity.

Now, I can't speak to the legitimacy of your chart, but this was just an observation I made while looking at it.

Even if we assume that it's a straight drop in integrity as soon as you reach 200 degrees, the steel was not very hot because of the nature of these fires (open air and relatively low temperature, since jet fuel doesn't really burn hotter than what you'd see in a house fire anyway).

When you consider that cardington experiments directly heated ALL of the steel to 1000 degrees for multiple hours, and still stood, it begs the question of how did the fires in WTC superheat the steel to greater temperature than the fires themselves were, which would have been necessary (from experimentation) to allow for gravity structural collapse?

[Anonymous No.4982086]

Jet fuel muahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.4982099]

>>4982085
do you not know how to read a graph? steel would lose half its strength at 900 degrees.

[Anonymous No.4982100]

>>4982071
>>4982085
And pray-tell, which of the Truther sites did you get that long-since debunked copypasta?

It was Scholars for 9/11 Truth right? I love the one about the satellite lasers.

[Anonymous No.4982107]

does nobody realize that most of the jet fuel was burned up in the giant fireball on impact?

Also even though steel only has to weaken, there's no chance in hell that the beams weakened uni formally from top to bottom for a downward collapse.

saying the steel was "only weakened" actually supports "conspiracy theories". If the beams were only weakened the building would have fallen to the side as the force of the building coming down would have favored the weakened section.

>more disproof of pancake. Top section falling to side as nature intends yet it still "pancaked" and turned to dust

[Anonymous No.4982108]

i'll reiterate:

1. Steel superheated directly to 1000 degrees celsius across 100% of all structural support will still hold up an 8 story steel structure without issue, with 100% success rate (Cardington Fire Experiments)

2. The fires in WTC were relatively cool.

3. The steel in WTC was not as hot as the fire.

4. The argument is not that the steel couldn't have "melted," that's silly, the argument is that the steel's temperature (let alone 100% of all structural steel around the perimeter of the entire WTC structure) was not the same temperature as the (already not very hot) fire, and instead was much cooler than the fire, after only an hour. the argument is that in all manner of experimentation involving structural steel, you can superheat the entire base support of a building to 1000 degrees Celsius for hours and hours on end, and it will never collapse (cardington tried eight or so times to induce a collapse, but all experimentation came negative with no collapse).

You can conjecture about how steel weakens, but experimentally, this has been shown to be largely irrelevant up to steel temperatures of 1000 degrees Celsius, the weakened steel is still so incredibly strong that it will hold up a structure anyway. Steel was and is used in skyscrapers specifically for its ability to survive a fire, and they have done brilliantly at it until 9/11.

[Anonymous No.4982109]

>>4982100
I didn't get it from any website at all, if I did you wouldn't have needed to ask and then create an ad hominem in the hopes that we could all play pretend you should be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.4982112]

It's 2012, and you faggots are still on this?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Now since I know you losers are just going to attack the source without bothering to read it, since it's just so easy to ignore what you don't like, I'll go ahead and dumb it down for y'all:

1. The Loose Change video started out as a piece of pure fiction until the asshole who made it realized he could fuck with idiots by just pretending he was serious. He's a fucking troll who wants to be famous. This isn't a claim, by the way, but undeniable fact.

2.What we do have: an organization that has claimed responsibility and has subsequently been curb-stomped by the US Army without ever changing their story.
What we don't have: thousands of physicists and engineers coming out and saying the official account is bullshit.

3. Here's the part that utterly destroys the Truther movement. The only other explanation is that literally thousands of people spent months installing explosives in a busy building without ANYONE noticing and calling the cops, and all these people have kept their mouths shut. They betrayed their country and got thousands of people killed, and for what? Money? Were they paid more than they could make by simply going public and getting the biggest book deal in history? And what of the investigators? Engineers? Press? Their families when they notice a sudden flood of money? Were all these people paid tens of millions of dollars? Are the neckbeards in the Truther movement the only people not paid off in the country?

I'm a veteran of the US Navy, and if my 8 years has taught me anything it's that the government cannot do anything right the first time. The simple truth is, there exist a special kind of worthless human being who wants to be special so bad that they'll believe just about anything as long as it puts them in a special group.

[Anonymous No.4982113]

[Anonymous No.4982116]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI5DcHJZMuc

[Anonymous No.4982118]

>>4982112

>What we don't have: thousands of physicists and engineers coming out and saying the official account is bullshit.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Anonymous No.4982120]

>>4982112
poppycock until you cite sources
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

[Anonymous No.4982123]

>>4982108
sorry, but did a 747 crash into cadington's buildings? also, how tall were those buildings again?

[Anonymous No.4982125]

>>4982118
http://www.icr.org/
I can post links to sites making preposterous claims to take advantage of the weak minded and scientifically illiterate too.

[Anonymous No.4982128]

Ancient aliens

[Anonymous No.4982130]

I find it interesting why everybody only focusses on the twin towers ( since we're only talking about in the thred)

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

[Anonymous No.4982131]

>>4982118
>1700 architects and engineers (about half of which are students)
There are more than two million engineers employed in the United States alone. 1700 is less than one tenth of one percent of that.

Even more embarrassing than AE911 is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice" movement, which claims to represent a vocal and substantial minority in the scientific community on the matter of the 9/11 attacks, yet only includes about a dozen physicists (most of whom are the founding members of the organization)

[Anonymous No.4982132]

>>4982128
actually, it was the jews

[Anonymous No.4982133]

>>4982125

straw man and Ad hominem arguments will be discarded this is /sci/ not /b/ or /pol/

[Anonymous No.4982134]

>>4982123
retard alert!
You are weakening your own argument.

[Anonymous No.4982135]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

HYPNOTIZED FAGGOTS

HYPNOTIZED FAGGOTS

HYPNOTIZED FAGGOTS

HYPNOTIZED FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.4982138]

>>4982112
>i'll make a post attacking sources instead of addressing the actual argument in the thread

>>4982071
>>4982085
>>4982108

How intellectually honest of you. The merit of loose change is irrelevant to whether or not the steel would have been the same temperature as the already relatively cool fires burning on 9/11. The steel was a lot colder than the open air fires burning nearby it.

[Anonymous No.4982139]

>>4982132
That's what I said.

[Anonymous No.4982141]

>>4982123
sure feels summer in here

[Anonymous No.4982144]

>>4982139
lol'd

[Anonymous No.4982145]

>>4982071
Because as we all know, a four story office building and a 110 story skyscraper with a one-acre footprint are completely equatable with one another.

[Anonymous No.4982146]

This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135
>>4982135

[Anonymous No.4982149]

>>4982145
refer here
>>4982108

[Anonymous No.4982150]

>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107
>>4982107

[Anonymous No.4982151]

>>4982123
no 747 crashed into any of the wtc towers, a much smaller aircraft did (higher number doesn't always mean bigger plane).

additionally, not even NIST asserts that the structural supports were disabled by the aircraft impacts, because the aluminum crafts were just cut and destroyed by the structural supports, not the other way around.

here's a friendly pic showing what happens when an aluminum craft crashes into a structural support at 500 mph. but then again, you're just relying on what "sounds" reasonable, and not what is reasonable experimentally and observationally, so I doubt you'll even concede this point. or if the pics not enough for you:

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

[Anonymous No.4982152]

>>4982133
Crying like a little bitch only makes you look bad. The link provided is a joke, no more respectable than a bunch of fundies. Deal with it.

>>4982131
Doesn't that remind you of the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list of 761 "scientists" who reject evolution. Hey! More similarities to fundies!

[Anonymous No.4982153]

" am a Nazi alien overlord" - King of Ameirca 2002

[Anonymous No.4982154]

>>4982130
this can't be real

[Anonymous No.4982155]

>>4982107
>thinks a skyscraper with a one-acre footprint would fall sideways like a fucking tree being chopped down

[Anonymous No.4982156]

More like /sci/ - phoney pseudo science brought to you by MOSSAD and the JIDF.

[Anonymous No.4982158]

SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE
SAGE

[Anonymous No.4982160]

>>4982138
You didn't bother to read what I wrote, did you? I destroyed any claims of an inside job. I'm waiting for your explanation of what happened. Just kidding, you're a joke.

[Anonymous No.4982159]

>>4982158
you're using sage incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.4982162]

>>4982156
but wtc 7 was a controlled demolition, kerry already said it was to ''prevent further damage''

[Anonymous No.4982165]

>>4982159
your using your tiny penis wrong.

[Anonymous No.4982166]

>>4982131
Fun fact - the percent of Engineers in the United States who believe 9/11 was a controlled demolition is of the same order of magnitude as the percent of Americans who are Wiccans.

[Anonymous No.4982167]

>>4982165
0/10
come on man step it up

[Anonymous No.4982170]

>>4982167
very wise of you to delete your post

[Anonymous No.4982172]

>/Sci/ actually believes 2 aluminum 747 planes brought down 3 steel buildings.
>Mfw

[Anonymous No.4982173]

>>4982151
seriously? you're comparing the walls of a nuclear reactor made of several feet thick concrete to the structural support of a building?
>not even NIST asserts that the structural supports were disabled by the aircraft impacts
no one here is saying that either. The point is that it was weakened by several factors that eventually led to its collapse. being hit by a jet is one of them.

[Anonymous No.4982174]

>>4982155

it does sounds silly when you simplify it like that

though gravity usually works the same way across the board

[Anonymous No.4982175]

>>4982172
the board has gone downhill, nobody is sane anymore

[Anonymous No.4982178]

>>4982175
JIDF detected

[Anonymous No.4982180]

>>4982178
but I'm not jewish, and I'm pro-truther
>inb4 infiltrator

[Anonymous No.4982183]

>>4982180
Yes! That's it, goy! The all-powerful U.S. government brought the Twin Towers down! Don't listen to the phony "scientists" have to say!

[Anonymous No.4982184]

let's assume that the plane was hijacked and crash into the 2 towers and made them collapse
then the question should change to : did the US government know about this before it happen ?

[Anonymous No.4982186]

>>4982180
Yes! That's it, goy! The all-powerful U.S. government brought the Twin Towers down! Don't listen to what the phony "scientists" have to say!

[Anonymous No.4982188]

>>4982184
yes
several events has happened on the day before it happened
see
>>4982130

[Anonymous No.4982190]

>>4982186
o...k.....

[Anonymous No.4982192]

>>4982112
>The only other explanation is that literally thousands of people spent months installing explosives in a busy building without ANYONE noticing and calling the cops, and all these people have kept their mouths shut

They would have had to have friends in high places to pull of something like that

[Anonymous No.4982195]

>>4982172

How about two 220,000 lb aircraft moving 500 mph?

I bet that could do some damage.

[Anonymous No.4982198]

>>4982195

see
>>4982116