/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12014362
about a gallon

>>12014362
If you believe that a hijacked plane just magically flew close to ground level just so it could strike the one recently reinforced part of the Pentagon's walls, instead of just smashing through the roof which would have been both easier and simpler for a novice pilot to pull off, then please leave /sci/.

>>12014374
Schizo please

if it is possible to demolish a tower by melting a comparably small amount(to the tower) of metal in the center of the top floors, why not

>>12014374
>magically flew close to ground level
You mean like every plane on earth does twice a flight?
>through the roof which would have been both easier and simpler
What gives you this idea? To hit the roof from above the options are:
>nose down negative G
>roll inverted and pull positive G onto target
>nose down far from target and try not to overspeed as you dive
Hitting the wall close to the ground is actually the easiest option as you can just keep the throttle wide open to maintain a low AoA and point the nose.

I have no problem with people questioning major events but at least learn something about the subject instead of parroting points you have heard from others that also know nothing about the topic.

>>12014362
mossad jet fuel, or the regular variety?

>>12014582
you all finished fellating yourself, champ?

>>12014608
I never finish, ending makes you stronger.

It doesn't even matter we've got witnesses many firefighters on film saying there were explosions in the basement plus the 1 million dollar bounty to make a simulation of the 3rd tower falling still hasn't been claimed.

>>12014362
about one plane's worth it looks like

>>12014374
to hit the budget analysts office where they were working on the mystery of the missing $2 trillion - and not the part of the building where all the generals and high ranking officers would've been

>>12014374
>>12014386

There is gotta be a term for people who wouldn't normally believe such bullshit but since it's the main narrative they completely disregard the fact it doesn't plausible for such a feat to happen.

>>12014362
about twice the mass of jet fuel as steel, the building fell because of structural damage to the core that worsened with the heat and fire destroying the non-steel structure.
the 2nd building to fall might not have collapsed if not for the seismic damage caused by the fall of the first.

>>12014374
the novice pilot bounced off the parking lot

If you make a lake of jet fuel such that only the surface of the lake burns and you put steel beams above the lake, then it doesn't take much jet fuel to melt them depending on how long and thin the beams are. If you atomize a large volume of jet fuel so that all of it burns away in less than five seconds, then there is no amount of jet fuel that could melt steel beams.

>>12014582
No it's not simpler. Look up the actual maneuver this guy did, he took a harder path to do less damage, to hit the one fucking reinforced part of the Pentagon. How convenient that he did all that.

bollyn.com

>>12014374
>>12016833
>Look up the actual maneuver this guy did, he took a harder path to do less damage
this
the whole attack was either a massive fucking brainlet moment which also ended up being weirdly convenient for the Pentagon (also convenient that jet fuel can melt steel beams but can't damage pristine passports for some reason), or the thing was done with US involvement.
Anyone with any common sense at all would doubt this, but you tell them that it's capital O "Official" and suddenly nobody thinks it's suspicious anymore.

>>12014362
Particle fires burn hotter.
It wasn’t the jet fuel directly.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this is a physicslet that never studied real life.

>>12017588
>that never studied real life
as opposed to what exactly ? ? ?

>>12017595
That wasn’t phrased well.
What I mean really is they never studied what wasn’t on the test, and learned everything they remembered from thier budson burner + they have no practical experience in the field/ or never read about how industrial fire accidents work.
Basically all their knowledge is from how things work in perfectly controlled lavatory conditions, is what I ment

>>12017588
>>12017606
>Basically all their knowledge is from how things work in perfectly controlled lavatory conditions, is what I ment
Ok, I'm as guilty as thinking up theories on the shitter as the next physicist, but at the same time, we can't pretend that the official theory of how it happened is holy scripture.
In any scientific procedure, we have back and forth, and a lot of criticism can be made, but this is political, so any deviation from the accepted story is not treated scientifically. It's only "rebutted" with someone saying "oh but they found in the report that it happened this way" while that person has almost certainly not read the report either, and is only deferring to an assumed authority.
This is not to mention that since we don't have much experience with world trade centres being hit by planes, we're going to be doing a large amount of work via numerical simulations. But again, as anyone else who's done numerical work knows, the underlying assumptions are critical, and the underlying assumptions should also be valid targets of debate. Again, this is political, so cannot be done.
I'm not arguing in favour of any one 9/11 theory, but what I am saying is to say that the NIST report is the final word is a huge departure from any kind of scientific conduct, but that is only what we do because to do otherwise would threaten the political consensus. This doesn't actually mean that there aren't reasonable objections about the logic of the official story, or that the NIST report itself should be considered fact.

>>12014582
seriously go back to rebbit. If you want me to autistically hold your hand and show why you are an overly systematic asshole who is wrong:
>magically
does not describe a plane flying close to the ground - it describes the entire event
I haven't been on sci for at least a year and somehow I'm not surprised to come back and see that its basically redditors.

>>12017588
Doesn't it just have to bend the steel beans, there is a plane crashing towards it

>>12014362
You don't need to melt steel beams to completely change their mechanical properties. You only need a hit a specific temperature, for long a long enough period of time, and the yield strength of the steel will decrease. The towers also took a huge impact in the form of a jumbo jet hitting them at a great velcotity, so the mechanical properties of the steel were already screwed before the additional effect of the temperature.

Take them

>>12017738
u r dumb

>>12017691
they clearly told the guys from "nist" that we will kill ur familys if you question this retarded pancake collaspe theory.

>>12014362
>How much jet fuel does it realistically take to melt steel beams?
Why would you even need to melt them? It would be sufficient to make them hot enough to get them into their plasticity range, They would be like raw vs. cooked spaghetti but the difference would be order of magnitudes greater.
There's a reason why blacksmiths heat up the metal they want to form

>>12017738
retard

>>12017759
?

>>12017547
Every claim you made is a lie.

>>12017766
t. Conspiracy theorist.

>>12017765
the beams at the bottom were fine, why would they then suddenly lose structure 90 floorS below the SUPER HOT MAGIC FIRES.

>>12017776
>why would beams underneath lose structural integrity of the floors above collapsed and fell onto bro

>>12017779
THEY WERE ALREADY HOLDING UP THE WEIGHT YOU FUCKING PLEB

>>12017779
U R DUMB DUMB

reminder that NEWTONS "third law of motion" was broken 3 times on that magical day.

>>12017784
They were holding when the building had structural integrity. Once a large section of the towers lost its structurual integrity from a great impact force and exposure to high temperatures, the mass of all the floors above crashed onto the floors bellow. This is first year mechanical engineering.

>>12017776

imagine 4 uncooked macaroni sticks holding up a sausage.

it stands up

i cut 3 macaroni sticks at the top, the 4th one buckles at the bottom and the sausage falls over.

>why?

because after the break of the 3 pillars holding up the sausage, all the weight above the break now leans onto that 1 last maraconi, making it break. and it will break on the part where its weakest. Either just under the place where the plain hit (pancake) or snap at the base, where its carrying everything + all its own weight above it.

look at OP's image, that top bit above the plain crash is being carried by lets say half as many pillars as it used to, those pillars are also heating up weakening the steel even if it does not melt them. And once something snaps and that top bit falls you now have those severely stressed pillars beyond spec having to deal with a sledgehammer of stuff falling on top of them and pushing them to their sides (their weakest resistance)

>>12017784
Balance a book on your head. Now drop the book from a building's roof onto your head. Nothing should happen since your head held the weight fine right?

Pic unrelated

>>12017793
controlled demolition. Anything else is a delusion or a magic spell cast by people who dont want to face the truth or have want to hide the truth

>>12017797
It would be a progressive collapse if it happened the way you believe it did, Both towers wouldnt fall in FREEFALL SPEED straight into the ground.

>>12017784
Your head can support a brick's weight just fine when its resting on it. By your logic it'll be fine if I drop one onto it from 10 stories up then.

>>12017801
There is absolutely zero evidence for a controlled demolition, nor is there a need to posit such an explanation because we can explain the collapse sufficiently with a basic understanding of mechanical engineering. Additionally your theory introduces more assumptions, which you are unable to substantiate, so by occams the basic mechanical theory of collapse is a better explanation.

>>12017797
3 bits of macoroni hahahah try 1million bits of macoroni , im pretty sure if you built the towers with macoroni,it would still survive multiple jet airliner hits.


try again you fucking maggot

>>12017803
>Both towers wouldnt fall in FREEFALL SPEED straight into the ground.
They didn't. It was near freefall speed.

OP needs to learn some material science and stop making an ass out of himself. This is not /x/ or /pol/, go there if you want to be a retard.

>>12017811
You're replying to the wrong person, try again retard.

>>12017805
the floors above the impact zone didnt magically drop onto the floors below FROM 10 STORIES UP, it was fixed complete structure all the planes did was take of less than 1% of the actual structure. but somehow this was enough force to bring the whole building down at freefall speedu , not once but twice

>>12017811
I can't tell whether you were already this stupid or you actually did try dropping a book on your head from high up.

>>12017811
>1 million bits of macaroni

ok, now fly a plane into the sausage

funfact: if we stop the pointless argument with OP it will be called "cancel culture"

>>12014362
phosphorus in steel lowers melting point

>>12017821
>it was fixed complete structure
It was a conpromised structure. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the damaged floors. So those floors agreed and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which caused them to bow and lose their load bearing capacity. The force from the top of the building falling downward was more than enough to initiate a total progressive collapse.

>all the planes did was take of less than 1% of the actual structure
Wrong, the planes started fires that were the primary cause of collapse.

>>12017829

the fall damage propagates faster through steel beams though, so in this example if we balance a pen at floor level at each building, the left one will tip over the pen.

Just the same, the material itself will reach the bottom faster on the right, but the explosive force (clouds of smoke and dust, concrete, steel, flying off, things collapsing) the left will have that race to the bottom faster then the right. this is what happened to the WTC, as the stress of the collapse above started to pancake, things started to violently buckle below before concrete had time to fall to that level.

Nothing about this is unusual or even unlikely. We see this in controlled demolition or fires bring down buildings alike.

>>12017829
Please explain how it's physically impossible and violates Newton's laws (as if these aren't the same thing).

>>12017829
For a start, your image is fake and gay.

>>12017836
>>12017839
>>12017841
>>12017844

>>12017851
That another gave you an actual argument based on mechanical behaviour and you're posting gay pictures because you have no argument other than gay trooofer shit about how "MUH JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEEEEMS".

>>12017851
Here we see the full extent of the Truther's intellect.

>>12017855
Other anon**

>>12014362
it's not a function of volume of combustible but rather a function of adiabatic flame temperature. e.g. jet fuel will not burn hotter if there's more of it, it will burn at its burning temperature regardless of quantity ceteris paribus.

>>12017855
>>12017856

>>12017863
Wouldnt most of the fuel Blow up on impact, just like what we see in the video's?

>>12014386
Retard

>>12017863
steel beams melt at roughly 2800F, now of course we need to take into account that for a building to collapse its structure doesn't have to "melt" but only be heated to its breaking point which for the average steel beam is around 1200F. now we take into account that jet fuel (kerosene) burns roughly at around 1500F and we also need to take into account that jet fuel wasn't the only combustible in that situation but also everything else in those buildings also burned which theoretically should raise the room temperature to way higher than 1500F

Folk's i;d like to really sincerely apologize for my language a few post back in the thread.

i really thought i was posting on /x/ and was suprised by the name slagging name calling at the start of the thread.

>>12017909
we have no idea to figure out who you are or what post you apologize, so im just gonna assume you are for all posts here.

>>12017884
It wouldnt be a constant temp at every steel joint or every steel beam, some beams would be way cooler than others,far to many variables to have an exact temp of 1500f through out the impact zone with large fires, which again would lead to a progressive collapse

>>12014374
this, also convenient how this whole thing had been planned since Project Northwoods

>>12014374
Don't forget people apparently made phone calls and shit when there should've been no way to get a connection on a flight going that quickly or that high up.
Japanese TV even tried this and they all lost their signals.

>>12017792
Please explain, I need a good joke.

>>12017856
imagine trusting your government and thinking that makes you smart

>>12017934

>>12014362
Someone explain how the other building collapsed when it wasn't even hit by a plane.

>>12017992
damaged from one of the fallen towers and a fire inside caused a critical column to fail and bring the whole tower down inside 9 seconds. Fucking amazing that they knew from the outside looking in that a column failed, infact a critical column failed and it brought the whole house down.

>>12014374
Based.
>inb4 this is a serious discussion thread
This is not a serious discussion thread. The joke is on anyone taking this seriously.

>>12017992

Why would people who were trying to stage an airplane attack bother to lace a nearby smaller building with explosives and not even damage that one, opening themselves up to serious scrutiny?

>>12017926
You don't need the exact temperature at every point in the beam for it lose its mechanical properties. Do you have even science?

high IQ = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

low iq = planes did it

>>12018048
Did I say anything about that? No? Then go back to r*ddit.

>>12017884
>now we take into account that jet fuel (kerosene) burns roughly at around 1500F
This meme annoys me every time I see it.
The burning of jet fuel is an exothermic reaction, for each gram of jet fuel that burns you get an amount of energy converted to heat, It doesn't just magically stop at a certain temperature, you keep getting heat until the reaction stops.

>>12017958
Well if an image on the internet says it it must be true.

>>12017940
Where did I say anything like that?

>>12017932
>there should've been no way to get a connection on a flight going that quickly or that high up.
Source? Air phones existed and were used frequently.

>>12017958
Source?

>>12018300
Yeah but there were cell phone calls made too, not air phones. This is weird because you'd be changing cell very frequently if you were low and traveling rapidly, and if you were high up you'd think there should be no signal. I'll see if I can find the TV show.

>>12018320
>Yeah but there were cell phone calls made too, not air phones.
And why do you think cell phones can't get a signal on an airplane?

>>12018327
Because we don't use AMPS anymore, which had longer range. The modern cell phone works in a way which would need to frequently switch cell if you were in a plane, and would have shorter range, so wouldn't be able to call from a plane without chopping out frequently.
>>12018320
It's probably because the older phones were still using AMPS at the time. It is still slightly strange that they reported good call quality, but this is probably the reason that the Japanese TV show didn't get a signal because Japan was using the more modern phone which actually had shorter range.

Here's the thing
Why fly planes into a building you're bombing anyway? Why not fly planes in all the buildings you're bombing?
Doesn't make sense.

>>12014362
They don't have to be weaker, material has different resistance to stress when even slightly heated up few hundred degrees.

>>12018369
>why fly planes into building if bomb
No air traffic surveillance and control campaign possible if there are just bombs. Hijacking hysteria enabled the TSA, air marshals on planes and is more psychologically crippling for people

>>12018601
That's bullshit though, they would just have the TSA equivalent for buildings. Why does the government want the TSA anyway? It's unpopular and gives them no benefit.

>>12018188
thermodynamics would like to have a word anon, you need more and more energy to make smaller and smaller increments in temperature, or do you think if you burn something for long enough you can just reach infinite temperature? lol

>>12019139
>you need more and more energy to make smaller and smaller increments in temperature

But you don't?
The only limiting factor is heat being moved away through convection/conduction, and since those do scale with heat it does get harder, but these simply move the heat elsewhere, if you limit them (perhaps by surrounding the fire with concrete and insulation), or if you simply brute force it by burning enough to toast the planet, there's nothing to stop you from going as far as you have fuel for.

>>12014362
three fiddy

>>12018726
They wouldn’t because building security isn’t enforced or under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Its moreover the fear factor and the ease of implicating all international flights as potential battlefields for the “war without borders”.

>>12014362
>How many 50°C hot plates do I have to use to boil a liter of water?

>>12014722
Just a cohencidence buddy.

>>12014722
shit happens

>>12017829
This is a lie. See the debris falling? That's falling at nearly no resistance or close to the maximum speed of gravity. See how it's falling faster than the building itself? Yeah, you bet you do. Saying the towers fell 'at nearly the same rate it would have taken to fall through air' is the argument of a 9 year old child.

>>12014450
they dont want to hear this, it doesnt agree with their 'theory'

>>12019275
>They wouldn’t because building security isn’t enforced or under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
All the more reason why "they" would want to seize control of it. Yes, clearly THEY wanted to control all buildings but the brave patriot hijackers foiled THEIR plan by making it look like the planes destroyed those buildings.

>>12020042
wait wut? so your actually saying the one on the left will fall faster????????????


please can you answer . Yes or No

>>12014362
a few important tumblr posts will take a whole brain down

>>12014362

>>12020768

>>12014362
Every time.

Steel doesn't have to be at the melting point to lose load capacity.
Steel beams will start to have fatigue and their load capacity will drop as the beams get heated closer to +425 celsius.
>but hurr even if carrying capacity drop by 50% WTC should still stand

The plane took out more than one primary structural member. The moment one of the still remaining supporting beams began to bend, it was game over.

>>12020779
explain how the untouched beams several floors below the impact zone and fires zones , Would suddenly start bend.

>>12020779
Are You are aware that the towers were designed to withstand multiple jet airliner Hits

>>12020822
Source?

>>12020817
Read the thread
You can hold up a weight but can you catch the same weight when it's falling towards you?

>>12020817
I can unrack and squat 200kg, but I would not stand below a 200kg barbell being dropped onto me from 5 meters above.

>>12020843
NO LOAD dropped from above The Beams were 99% intact several meters below the impact/crash/fire zones. They held fine until another force blew them to pieces.

>>12020840
The designers/architechs of the buildings

>>12020878
Source?

>>12020871
>NO LOAD dropped from above
Why are you lying?

>>12017801
So what was the point of the planes? Why not just demolish the buildings?

>>12020871
>NO LOAD dropped from above
Moron.

>>12020907
smoke and mirrors. Remember NO PLANE hit wtc7 yet it fell to the ground in under 9 seconds due to fires, and damage from one of the towers.

>>12017811
Are you actually this mentally retarded or just some russian being paid to shill this shit.

>>12020927
Wrong, the planes were hijacked by patriots trying to stop the government takeover of all valuable buildings. This has already been proven, illuminati shill.

>>12020768
>>12020770
Please explain why "they" would leave cryptic messages that might expose them.

People in this thread pretending they know more than civil/mechanical engineers, physicist and chemist.

>>12020042
What's the maximum speed of gravity. Didn't know gravity was a speed

>>12017801
modern buildings are engineered to break down like that

>>12020949
Oh most people know way more than engineers. Engineers tend to be highly egotistical and overconfident about their knowledge. They trick themselves into believing all sorts of false crap.

>>12020940
Because they were brothers but now they're sisters so it's not the same persons

>>12020963
Good things engineering has nothing to do with computers or servers or shit. Just false crap they told themselves. Genius anon

>>12020965
What do computers have to do with 9/11?

>>12020965
>Good things engineering has nothing to do with computers or servers or shit
Who do you think worked all the material and created all the components that make up computers? Do you think we dig silicon microchips out of the ground?

>>12020971
What does saying experts aren't experts in their field (they just make up crap after all) have to do with 9/11?

>>12020974
So if you dig up steal that eventually gets forged into a sword you're an expert swordsman?

>>12020927
So wtc 7 was the real target according to conspiratards. Ok, so why not just blow up that one? Why steer planes into all the others? If wtc7 wasn't the only target, why not put a plane in there too?

>>12020978
Engineers don't just dig up the materials, you absolute fucking cretin.

>>12020975
What are you even going about you utter dunce.

source for Anon

An additional load, not required by any building codes, but stated by PANYNJ to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a commercial airliner. Documents obtained from PANYNJ indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 aircraft flying at a speed of 268 m/s (600 mph) was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. The life safety considerations following such impact were also addressed. One document stated that “…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

>>12020990
>Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
The impact didn't cause collapse. The impact + heat did.

>>12020975
You can find "experts" saying anything you want, you'll have to try harder than that.

>>12020983
You guys just cant help your selves always with the labelling and petty childish name calling.

>>12020995
SO EXPLAIN wtc7 NO PLANE IMPACT

>inb4 muh tower1 fell on it.

wtc 7 was almost 3 blocks away and got hit with minimal debris

>>12021008
>SO EXPLAIN wtc7 NO PLANE IMPACT
Debris and heat.

>>12020963
> Oh most people know way more than Anon. Anons tend to be highly egotistical and overconfident about their knowledge. They trick themselves into believing all sorts of false crap.

>>12020988
Dipshit saying experts aren't experts is how you get 9/11 retards believing all sorts of crap. It's even funnier discrediting engineers since the internet, your phone or PC, and power grid that enables people to communicate your retarded thoughts is thanks to engineers

>>12021008
>wtc 7 was almost 3 blocks away and got hit with minimal debris
Bullshit, there was major damage to the south face from heavy debris and major fires throughout the building. You're a liar.

>>12021000
Yeah what engineers/scientists are saying 9/11 is an inside job? It retard armchair conspiracies are so sure then where the experts backing em up?

>>12021014
>makes argument from authority
>projects it into others
You're really bad at this.

>>12021023
Did you drink too much bleach anon because trump told you it cures covid?

>>12021017
>Dipshit saying experts aren't experts is how you get 9/11 retards believing all sorts of crap
It's the opposite. Do you know how many engineers are troofers? Shutting off your brain and believing the first expert you see is how troofers are created.

>>12021031
Where? Saying whatever you want doesn't make it true. Don't be coming in with like comp science or comp sec. engineers that are hacks anways

>>12021021
>Yeah what engineers/scientists are saying 9/11 is an inside job?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

>>12021030
Trump is retarded, try again.

>>12020995
This is still hard to believe, There was next to zero resistance from 3 towers when they supposed to have fell due to heat and muh debris.

ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

you are the LIAR here anon also a petty name caller. You stick out a mile, your arrogance is on show for everybody to see.

>>12021034
See >>12021034

>>12021040
> Founder Richard Gage
> He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers after listening to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.

So you found a group of nut cases willing to follow a nutcase? What's your point? Where's the scientific consensus? Fridge tards don't count genius

>>12021043
You don't trust experts so presumably you drank the bleach. Try again.

>>12021040
asks for engineers
> oh here's a bunch of architects.

>>12021048
Ok scrub. Snooor.

superior design

will the truth ever come out?
even if the truth did come out, would it even make any difference to the utter shambloic state the current year?

Mr Shill can you explain to us retard's how these squips are created with the Impact plus heat offically endorsed pancake mix theory.

>>12021078
It helps when the building is less than a quarter the height and hasn't had an airliner crash into it.

>>12021046
>This is still hard to believe
You don't have to believe anything, you can look at simulations of the collapse. Your naive intuition isn't science.

>>12021049
LOL I found your precious engineers saying 9/11 was an inside job, as you asked. That every topic has fringe experts is exactly my point.

>>12021056
>3,244 architects & engineers

>>12021090
poor reply anon. its on fire,its hot,the beams are still intact. grenfell tower looks like its on fire way more than the LOCAL impact area of both towers, and AGAIN wtc7 was not hit by a n aircraft.

>inb4 muh debris

wtc7 was fine for at least 5 hours before they "pulled it"

>>12021094
neither are those cgi simulation's science, its a fucking simulation of what they think happened.

where as, people who are not scumbags,can see that they were blown up and theres a massive cover up still going on today which you are probably well aware off.

>>12021097
LOL. Scholar's for 9/11 truth has hardly any engineers. But if you want to play a numbers and authority game, most engineers disagree.

>>12021097
The only guy worth listening too is David chandler

>>12021101
Wrong. Scholar's for 9/11 truth has people who aren't even in the hard sciences.

>>12021109
why dont you name some of the pro horeshit theory.

these guys are all the evidence you'll ever need.

>>12021114
Hard sciences HAHAHAHAHAH

Is it a members club? Do you have to be willing to lie under oath? How do i get in this club?

>>12021123
Hard sciences, as opposed to the soft sciences, which includes psychologists and sociologists.

>>12021116
Those who haven't joined this crank organisation. That is, the majority of engineers in the world. Millions.

>>12021102
>>12021108
No matter how much you cope, no matter how much you deny engineering, now matter what you do, the most supported conclusion is the pancake theory because it's based on evidence. Your theory is wrong and had no supporting evidence. There is NOTHING you can do about it. Cope, seethe, cry. That's all you can do. Now buzz off and go watch another we are change documentary you fat loser.

>>12021118
Shills wont ever touch on the subject of
B o m b s i n the B a s e m e n t.

ever
>ever

>>12021127
Not same anon but this means nothing. Just because millions of engineers say they believe the official story means absolutely nothing unless they've actively worked through the theory behind it themselves. Otherwise this is just a statement of faith.

>>12021131
Tell me more about the Squibbs, We can all see them in the video EVIDENCE, how do you explain them using the pancakes theory?

>>12014362
>how jet fuel steal melt can?
https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
S. T. F. U. & K. Y. S.

The Twin Towers were constructed poorly, that's why they fell down under the fire load.

>>12014362
>>12014374
this
and why does everyone focus on the controlled demolition shit when we have weird crap like the Pentagon getting hit in the only reinforced part, the fucking Dancing Israelis, the passports magically emerging unscathed, Bush connections to the bin Laden family completely dropped, but no, it's always some stupid debate about whether it was a controlled demolition or not.

>>12021141
This means nothing. Just because millions of doctors say covid is bad and to wear a mask, unless they personally get covid themselves they should stfu otherwise they're operating on faith.

>>12021142
FAT LOSER
GO CRY

>>12021153
Smart-ass answer with zero thought.
The correct analogy here would be unless doctors have personally seen and understood the evidence then their opinions on whether or not mask-wearing is beneficial is useless. Or do you think that the title alone is what gives them their authority?

>>12021144
bet you this guys thinks he's a fucking real hero.

The anvil is Fine. Only the steel that he heated was compromised The structure (anvil) below the weakened joint (the steel bar) was still very much intact. much like the floors below the impact zone.


next.

>>12021101
> architects

HAHAHA. I forget do they even have to look at calc 1 or touch physics at all?

>>12021097
You found an architect. Gage is an architect not an engineer, genius

>>12021166
Doctor dont know jack shit unless it benefits their wallet, Hell they even said smoking tobacco had health benefits back in the 1930's

>>12021166
> Smart-ass answer with zero thought.
The correct analogy here would be unless anon has personally seen and understood the evidence then their opinions on whether or not 9/11 is an inside job is useless. Or do you think that the title alone is what gives them their authority?

>>12014374
>>12016833
lmao that's the amazing part about troofers, they always come up with new bullshit. This time it's "look at the plane path, CLEARLY it was inconvenient although I can't explain why"

>>12021179
Yes, that's exactly right. If only it didn't take more than 4 posts to get to this basic conclusion.
If you're just regurgitating either the official story because it's official, or whatever alternative stuff you heard but never bothered to dig into either of this, both of these opinions are worthless. Well done.
Now if you're done paraphrasing me in lieu of the sick burn you're clearly desperate for but too dumb to come up with, just stop posting.

>>12021192
because it hit the only freshly reinforced part of the Pentagon, that's one obvious reason
second is the loop in the path before hitting the Pentagon is hard to pull off at high speed and low velocity, it's simpler just to go straight ahead for obvious reasons of straighter path and bigger target area

>>12021169
The anvil represents the load on the beams that failed (without melting!), not the structure of the building below

Next

>>12021192
so at what point would you accept a conspiracy theory without having the state endorse an explanation for you?
People love to shit on conspiracy theories, but so far the only part of this stuff that's been addressed with actual fact is the debate over controlled demolition and the cell phone question with>>12018340
I mean people love to shit on conspiracies like massive paedophile rings, government spying, and all that, until it comes out they were right, at which point the rhetoric becomes "oh well it was obvious/broken clocks are still right twice a day" with the trust in official stories left largely intact.

>>12021194
> Yes, that's exactly right. If only it didn't take more than 4 posts to get to this basic conclusion.
> If you're just regurgitating either the unofficial story because it's unofficial, or whatever alternative stuff you heard but never bothered to dig into either of this, both of these opinions are worthless. Well done.
> Now if you're done paraphrasing me in lieu of the sick burn you're clearly desperate for but too dumb to come up with, just stop posting.

>>12021194
Okay anon :D

>>12021215
hahahaha NO.


The anvil is fine. Very much like the floors below the impact zone. None of the steel structure below the fires was compromised.


Try again.

>>12021218
>so at what point would you accept a conspiracy theory without having the state endorse an explanation for you?
Bruh it's been twenty years that some faggots always appears with his new and improved conspiracy crap. Sure, it turns out that the ones before were bullshit but surely THIS TIME it's not a mix of half-truths and exagerated doubt (oh my God how could the plane hit a recently renovated wedge, what were the odds?!)
>I mean people love to shit on conspiracies like massive paedophile rings, government spying, and all that, until it comes out they were right
When and how? Sorry to break it to you, but everybody knows government spy, that's what intelligence agencies are for. There are plenty of scandals that come out every year. The difference between them and your brain-dead theory is that they have evidence behind them, instead of wishful thinking.
>so at what point would you accept a conspiracy theory without having the state endorse an explanation for you?
At what point would you accept flat earth theories?

Anyone else wondering if the fat form people's bodies also acted as more fuel in bringing down the towers?

>>12021270
getting desperate mr shill eh? we went 199 posts without the mention of ____


All the evidence supports controlled demo.

pic related vs 100 thousand tons of steel


who wins.

>>12021335
What about the heat from all the fat people burning and exploding. I thino they contributed more damage to the towers than the jet fuel/impact

>>12021335
Of what? Flat Earth? Your standard of evidence is the same as them.

>>12021372
Tell us about the squibbs anon, youve not explained in detail how the crispy pancake theory creates these squibbs.
when you just post more childish insults?

>>12021372

>>12021388
>>12021394
Is this a troofer thing where you feel like I insulted your culture?

The actual strength of concrete at room temperature is greater than that measured from cylinders poured for testing during construction, referred to as 28-day cylinder strength, as concrete continues to strengthen with age. Methods for estimating changes in concrete strength with age are specified by the American Concrete Institute

>>12021414
You blatantly ignore evidence.

Tell us about the b o m b s in the lobby?

oh wait you wont.

>>12021434
> You blatantly invent evidence.

>>12021452
for example?

>>12021427
Suggesting concrete doesn't get brittle with age

>>12021458
>>12021434

> Tell us about the b o m b s in the lobby

>>12021434
So what happens to you when people do accept a plot theory, like MKUltra, because there is actual evidence behind it. What does it do to your little persecution complex? Doesn't it pain you to see all those sheeple who should deny the truth (because unlike you they are brainwashed) just accept it in the face of evidence?

>>12014362
Depends on how much oxidizer there is in the geopolitical bellows

>>12021465
Eye witness accounts and actual video footage sound recordings and footage of explosions. ????

>>12021474
Of planes exploding? Yeah the planes exploded.

Of fat people exploding from the heat? Probably. Human fat acts like fuel if it's hot enough

>>12021474
Can you explain how those witnesses were able to differentiate the sound of "bombs" from the sound of jet fuel exploding?

>>12021483
why would jet fuel be exploading in the ground level lobby? most of the jet fuel ignited on impact with the tower

>>12021483
He can't because their 'witness' was trump

In the years between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded on 18 floors of WTC 1, including those on which the major fires occurred on September 11, 2001, and 13 floors of WTC 2 that did not include the fire floors.

>>12021147
Because the shills don't get payed to debate those arguments. Wtc 7 collapses into it's own blueprint from some office chairs burning, come on. Even after all these years, they still can't come up with half decent lies for these events.

>>12021487
Fat people are everywhere. Why are you ignoring that fat ignites when given a hot enough source

>>12021487
>why would jet fuel be exploading in the ground level lobby?
Because of gravity
>most of the jet fuel ignited on impact with the tower
Is that your expert opinion?

>>12021496
How many amerilards does it take to melt a steel beam?

>>12021528
Like 5. Peeps here are so fat they've had to make extrawide crematoriums to fit their lard asses

>>12021089
That's just dust shooting out from the pressure of the top half of the building falling in. Are you retarded?

>>12021109
>scholars for 9/11 truth
Who?

>But if you want to play a numbers and authority game
You're the only one who wanted to play.

>>12014362
Dumb question.
Better question: How much jet fuel does it realistically take to reduce the tensile strength of steel beams?

>>12021108
>neither are those cgi simulation's science
Dynamic modeling is definitely science. Why are you lying?

>where as, people who are not scumbags,can see that they were blown up and theres a massive cover up still going on today
So your only evidence is "hurr it look like dat and I don't believe duh dumb scientists."

>>12021350
A toothpaste cap in orbit can destroy the ISS.

>>12021552
That's a silly argument, they don't think the ISS is real

>>12021565
getting really desperate now HAHAHA.

>>12021492
its really lucky that wtc7 fell into its own footprint, if the debris from wtc7 had have fallen onto adjacent buildings and started fires it could have been a domino effect throughout new york.

>>12017884
>>12020779
>>12021472
From my scan of the thread, it looks like OP's question is the legitimate one to ask in relation to this topic. The question is not if the structural integrity of steel can be lost (it can), but the rate at which it is lost in various types of fire. This is then a function of the total combustibles in the relatively closed environment of the building, but since office fires do not normally cause structural failure, the key accelerant can be presumed to be the jet fuel.

What we need:
>data about fires in similarly sized (weighted) structures NOT caused by airplane collisions
>a list of structures that HAVE collapsed while not scheduled for controlled demolition
>an actual architect who works with these materials and can explain the non-naive parts of the science (that the rest of us wouldn't consider)


For conspiracies:
>any attempt to limit open dialogue is suspect
>if architects were threatened, there may be multiple explanations, up to and including government incompetence (not malice)
>the testimony of controlled demolition experts is valid and authoritative, while being anecdotal
>science can answer this question to a satisfactory degree and you are obliged to ask it

>>12021523
“…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact


yes upon viewing the footage of the jet impacts it looks like most of the fuel ignited m/s after impact.

>>12021579
Cheeky, but accurate.

>>12021546
Only like 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

Easily attainable with jet fuel or even enough human fat

>>12021620
Yes 20 year old non HD footage. Really good quality stuff right there

The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse 56 minutes after the crash, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties


>56 minutes

>>12021736
So will we just discount all important pre HD footage of major events?

>>12021749
Building codes require that elements that support loads are to be protected to achieve a specified fire resistance rating, expressed in hours. The WTC towers were classified as Class 1B, which required the columns to have a 3 h fire endurance rating and the floor system to a have a 2 h rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 [12].


>2 hours

>>12021749
>>12021767


something is not right. The steel had a fire protection rating of 2 hours, 2 hours before it would start to lose structural integrity, but the tower collapsed only 56 minutes after impact.


SOMEONE IS TELLING PORKIES

>>12021767
they weren't rated for planes impacting and exploding. Only normal everyday office fires.

>>12021780
wtc7 WAS NOT struck by a plane.

>>12021756
It isn't sufficient footage to say that from it you can conclude that all the jet fuel instantly ignited.

>>12021783
and your point? was it rated for a sudden collapse of a major nearby building? and debris from the explosions falling down on it?

>>12021113
He is a quack who couldn't do basic kinematic calculations correctly.

>>12021114
>Scholar's for 9/11 truth
Who? We're taking about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 TWOOF

>>12021795

> Four passenger airliners which had departed from airports in the northeastern United States bound for California were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed.
> Debris and the resulting fires caused a partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures.

>>12021817
implying architects and comp sec. egineers are in applied hard science

>>12021142
>squibbs
>it's just raven dust clouds being expelled as the collapse occurs
>actual squibbs go off simultaneously at every support point during a controlled demolition
It's not squibbs, retard.

May their Souls Rest in Peace.

Never Forget!
Praise ALLAH

>>12021147
>Pentagon getting hit in the only reinforced part
Source?

>the fucking Dancing Israelis
Source?

>the passports magically emerging unscathed
Source?

>Bush connections to the bin Laden family completely dropped
Source?

>>12021778
SHUT IT DOWN

>>12021147
> implying the hijackers weren't the martyrs they're made out to be

>>12021780
SEE
>>12021620
>>12021620
>“…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact

DO YOU EVEN READ THREADS?

>>12021170
>& engineers
So engineers aren't engineers? Why can't you face the fact that engineers are often wackjobs?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

>>12021173
I have you an organization with thousands of engineers, nice try retard.

>>12021871
architects aren't engineers. next

>>12021248
>IT'S FINE IT'S FINE THE ENTIRE TOP OF A BUILDING FALLING HAS NO EFFECT
Show the force calculations or fuck off, lying sack of shit.

>>12021882
yes a group of a few thousand wack jobs, mostly architects vs 10 of thousands of real engineers. smart.

>>12021871
Sorry, but articles about cognitive bias are only valid when Wikipedia doesn't delete them.

>>12021888
The "entire" top of the building wouldnt just "fall" most of it was still intact connected to the lower untouched undamaged floors after impact


unless there was another force separating every single supporting steel beams,trusses,columns etc etc The building wouldnt just FALL this isnt an anime episode.

>inb4 muh plane rammed n exploded hurr durr

see here again - > “…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact

>>12019465
This

>>12019465
just one if you lower pressure enough

>>12021871
> So engineers aren't engineers? Why can't you face the fact that engineers are often wackjobs?

> Most individual engineers are as sensible and reasonable as anyone, but engineers as a group have a noted tendency to pontificate on things well outside their area of expertise, to the point of actual fallacy. This phenomenon is so prevalent that users of talk.origins have come up with the Salem Hypothesis,

> which predicts that any creationist claiming scientific expertise or advanced degrees is likely to be an engineer.[5]

> Of course, this does NOT mean that engineers are likely to be creationists.

> The phenomenon also applies to some fields of computer science, such as software engineering, which are more applied mathematics than science.

> Quantitative evidence of this is lacking, but it has been noted on the Internet frequently.

>> Of course, this does NOT mean that engineers are likely to be creationists.

>>12021914
This.

>>12021914


> Twin Towers

> The investigation team integrated their metallurgy analysis, experimental results and computer simulation with video and photographs of the destruction and eyewitness accounts to form their understanding for how the buildings collapsed. They came to two conclusions:[15]

> A conventional fire should not have caused the collapse of the 110-story skyscrapers in the absence of structural and fire-proofing insulation damage.
The towers would likely not have collapsed if not for the impact and damage that the aircraft caused to the fire-proofing insulation.

> The most probable collapse sequence was similar between the South Tower and North Tower, but they were not identical. However, they both involved all major structural systems of the building design: the core columns, the exterior columns and the building floors.[17]

> First, the floors that lost fire-proofing insulation due to debris impact began to sag as a result of the high temperature of the fire.
> The sagging floors pulled inward on the girders and caused the exterior walls to deform.
> The exterior walls began to buckle under the combined forces of the sagging floors, the fire, and the severed core columns from aircraft impact damage.
> Finally, the exterior walls caved in and the buildings collapsed. The stories below provided little resistance to relatively tremendous energy of the falling building, allowing them to fall very quickly.

> The NIST investigation's conclusions do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, in which there is a progressive failure of the floor system.[18]

https://www.webcitation.org/5tmFOBanU?url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

>>12021989
everything below the 77th floor in south tower is intact. and holding up the weight of the damaged floors above above
everything below 93rd floor in north tower is intact and holding up the damaged floors above.

>somehow damaged floors fall through the intact floors of building at near freefall speed with what looks like zero resistance from the untouched undamaged portion of the structure that is still very capable of holding up the complete weight of the supposed sagging floors etc etc.

>>12022035
quick rundown?

>>12022071
Woman who lives near WTC gets her windows blown in by the shock wave and her apartment fills with red dust, she gets it sent to a lab and they find thermite and drywall

>>12022098
> Woman who lives near WTC gets her windows blown in by the shock wave and her apartment fills with red dust, she gets it sent to a lab and they find termites and drywall

>>12022067

>The stories below provided little resistance to relatively tremendous energy of the falling building, allowing them to fall very quickly.


> implying little resistence is same as zero. very quickly is same as freefall

yep you solved it!

>>12022213
The steel got lighter as the columns were built upwards in the towers,with some of the thickest strongest steel columns at the bottom obviously, the mass of the floors above the damage is still being held up with ease by the untouched structure. it was even that untouched the several fire fighter made all the way to the 77th floor impact area and were confident that they could contain the fire with their experience in actually fighting fire's.

>>“…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

If the fire protection was doing its job only the impact damaged floors would be on fire the building is designed to contain fire to the floor they start on, The fire protection barriers between floors is to stop fire spreading from floor to floor.

>>12021620
That has nothing to do with the jet fuel, it's taking about what the designers of the building thought would occur.

>>12022264
This. To believe they weren't destroyed by malice, from the inside, is to believe that the entire economy surrounding such skyscrapers is completely incompetent.

>>12022264
Theres even a picture of a person standing in the impact area of the tower.

>but myuh sagging beams hurr durr

Do you actually realize how many support beams, major structural columns,cross sectional trusses would have to start failing all at the same time in under an hour for south and 1hour 30m for north. for the pancakes theory to actually happen or any type of theory that subscribes to buildings falling from fire damage or plane impact damage.

>>12021778
It's well known that the plane damaged the fire-protective material surrounding the columns.

>>12021827
>comp sec. engineers
Source?

>>12022306
lmao, here comes the armchair inspector
plane impacts are insanely complex events

>>12021822
Your point?

>>12021886
Engineers are engineers. Try again.

>>12022316
>well known
Everyone who was there, died. There's no way for any honest agent to make a claim about what's well-known when literally the only thing the public has to go on is hear-say.

>>12021891
>vs 10 of thousands of real engineers. smart.
Source?

>>12021900
Wrong, try again.

>>12022335
Architecture isn't engineering. Try again

>>12022316
As the other anon has stated its impossible to know for certain, however i will concede that every single part of the fire protection was removed from the impacted floors. But thats still not enough to bring down the more solid lower part of the towers.

>>12022341
Source: litterally reality and the rest of society

Seriously 1500 engineers, most with just a BS and many not even related to civil or material engineering isn't much of a metric of support for insiderism and denying the hijackers achievements

>>12021914
>The "entire" top of the building wouldnt just "fall"
It would if the columns supporting the top of the building failed. You massive retard.

>most of it was still intact connected to the lower untouched undamaged floors after impact
How does this preclude it from falling? Hello? Is there anyone in there? If you hold a weight above your head and your point little arm snaps, guess what happens?

>unless there was another force separating every single supporting steel beams,trusses,columns etc etc
You don't understand how load beating works, it's comical. Doesn't matter how connected something is if those connections can't support a load.

>“…Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact
This is talking about what the designers of the building thought would occur. They were wrong.

>>12021963
And your point is?

>>12022348
There's a reason for my saying that that you didn't infer and don't know how to steelman in my stead.

>>12022373
Litterally doesn't support the notion that engineers are likely to believe crazy shit anymore than anyone else

>>12022364
its funny how you have to add childish insults to your paper thin post. TOP KEK if you are actually being serious or just lol if you know what youre trying to do.

>>12022362
>society
Mutually incompatible with reality. Consider how you would actually communicate that evidence, were its standard for relevance met.

>>12022364
If i held a weight above my head with both arms, and both my arms failed at the shoulder joint,elbow joint,wrist joint, finger bones all at the exact same time then the weight would fall down probably striking me on the head knocking me out or badly concussing me making me stumbling to the side. And the weight i was able to support with ease only moments before would impact my head and fall to the side, leaving a very bad nasty head wound,

with your logic

My joints would fail at the same time the weight would fall down into my head going straight through my skull,brain,it would turn my bones to dust, rip straight threw my rib cage,chest cavity, heart and lungs,stomach when i gets to my legs the weight will go through them with no resistance turning my calf muscles and ankle bones to a slimey mushy pile of flesh.


Nice try Kiddo.

>>12022412
This is all a perfectly valid read of anon's meaning and I'm not saying that ironically.

The fact is, there are material for which that analogy would be a perfectly valid scenario. We can create super-powders that would behave in that exact manner. In some ways, controlled demolition is the process of turning a structure into is local super-powder equivalent.

Neither of you has committed a fallacy.

>>12021854
>Pentagon getting hit in the only reinforced part
>American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon’s five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.
>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-sep-16-mn-46435-story.html

>Dancing Israelis
This one I won't bother with, don't know if I agree the Jews were particularly behind 9/11

>passports
https://web.archive.org/web/20020209185830/http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/10916Nrescues.html

>Bush connections with Bin Laden family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy
It starts here

>>12022431
>behind 9/11
Follow the truth, anon. Even if you're not sure, it's a greater wrong to let malice lie than to startle an innocent with some accusation.

>>12022431
In 1984, the company merged with Spectrum 7 Energy Corp.
>James Bond Tier lol

serious tho not much info on wiki about either company.

sorry to go off topic OP but -

>SBG's Internet domain name, saudi-binladin-group.com, was registered on September 11, 2000, for one year, expiring on the same day as the September 11 attacks. The domain was later acquired by a domain speculator.

another very strange coincidence.

>>12022549
I went to NY 9 months and 11 days before 9/11. Coincidence I think not

>>12022264
>the mass of the floors above the damage is still being held up with ease by the untouched structure
You keep repeating this like it means anything.

>it was even that untouched the several fire fighter made all the way to the 77th floor impact area and were confident that they could contain the fire with their experience in actually fighting fire's.
Bullshit.

>Analysis indicates...
This is just stating what the designers of the building thought would happen, it's irrelevant.

>If the fire protection was doing its job only the impact damaged floors would be on fire the building is designed to contain fire to the floor they start on, The fire protection barriers between floors is to stop fire spreading from floor to floor.
The impact damaged floors are the ones that failed.

All you have are irrelevancies and lies.

>>12022315
>Theres even a picture of a person standing in the impact area of the tower.
So?

>Do you actually realize how many support beams, major structural columns,cross sectional trusses would have to start failing all at the same time in under an hour for south and 1hour 30m for north
You don't understand how load bearing works. If the perimeter columns buckle then the load cannot be held. All perimeter columns were pulled inward by the floor sagging. If you think otherwise then prove it in a simulation, otherwise your claims will be ignored.

>>12022865
Not lies, merely logical obsevations.

Fire fighter's made it to the impact zone minutes later the tower came crashing down. FACT.

All you have is paper thin theorys based on illogical evidence.

>>12017793
What about the third tower collapse WTC Building 7? No impact there.

>>12022890
Most buildings were damaged around the towers. WC7 collapsed in part because of a broken fire retarded systems and uncontrolled fire.

>>12022885
>All perimeter columns were pulled inward by the floor sagging


ALL
>all
ALL

do YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR SAYING?

I dont need to simulate anything, i can watch hours of footage of the actual event. What i and many other see happning is vastly different to what they (nist) say happen is two very different things.

>>12022336
>Everyone who was there, died
And? Are you suggesting that we know from eyewitnesses? Are you really this retarded?

>There's no way for any honest agent to make a claim about what's well-known when literally the only thing the public has to go on is hear-say.
Cope more.

>>12014362
Melt? A metric fuckton.
Thermally weaken and expand to the point that the structural integrity of the support system is compromised? Significantly less.

>>12022357
Correct, the massive weight of the top of the building falling into the floors below is enough.

>>12022349
See >>12022335
>>12022362
>Source: litterally reality and the rest of society
So you lied, thanks for admitting it.

>>12022915
So is a controlled demolition. Simply having one possible explanation doesn't disprove the others.

>>12022915
not falling.

>>12022390
It's funny how you think whining about insults is going to distract from your utter failure to make an argument.

>>12022925
Implying Atta and bros aren't the heroes for Allah that they are

>>12022919
No. Common sense would tell you this anon but we know you're here because you haven't any

>>12022412
>failed at the shoulder joint,elbow joint,wrist joint, finger bones all at the exact same time
You're retarded. None of these are independent, they are in series. Only one has to fail for the weight to drop.

>with your logic
Nope, you're trying to argue quantitatively from a qualitative analogy. Try again. Or better yet, show your math and how NIST's math is wrong.

>>12022925
controlled demo = what we actually see happen
pancakes theory = nothing like what we actually see happen

>>12022379
It does, but this is besides the point. Many engineers are retarded truthers. This doesn't mean most engineers are.

>>12022376
This is gibberish, try again.

>>12017764
>>12021089
>>12021131
>>12021142
>>12021388
>>12022315
>>12022954
>pancakes pancakes pancakes
You guys are aware that the NIST investigation threw out the 9/11 Commission's oversimplified pancake collapse model, right?

The collapses of towers 1, 2, and 7 were MUCH more complex, progressive collapses caused when damaged and weakened support structures near plane/debris impact sites failed and cascaded through the surrounding support structure.
>Interesting side note - the NIST simulation of the Building 7 collapse is, to date, the only collapse simulation to accurately reproduce the premature collapse of the penthouse structures.

>>12022951
hahahahaha i dont want to lower myself to ur level and call you a major retard BUT .....

Are you actually proclaiming that i cant hold a weight above my head with broken fingers? using the stumps of my hands to take the weight. HAHAHAHAHAH


retardo

everytime you post you only reinforce how stupid the Pancakes fairytale sounds.

>>12022970

>>12022967
>much more complex

>ie YOU dont get it

>cascaded through the surrounding support structure.

HAHAHAHAHAHA holy shit this is impossible

its cascading through a perfectly fine and intact structure with next to NO resistance.

>>12022967
>progressive collapse

Is this the Official name for nists theory?

>>12022431
>>Pentagon getting hit in the only reinforced part
Your source says that 1/5 of the building is reinforced, so where the plane hit is not the "only" reinforced spot.

>This one I won't bother with
Because it's a retarded lie.

>passports
Very telling that you only said "passports" when the claim I quoted is that the passports found were "unscathed." Did you realize this lie was indefensible on your first Google search? See >>12017768

>according to journalist Craig Unger, who examined the relationship between the Bushes and Saudi financiers in his 2004 book House of Bush, House of Saud, and journalist Steve Coll, whose book The Bin Ladens examines the family's history, there is no evidence to support the claim.
Good job retard, you failed on every single claim.

>>12022981
substitute Progressive collapse for Pancake theory and its still the same thing, both just guesses based on what they saw happen. But nothing like what we actually see happening

>>12022888
>Not lies, merely logical obsevations.
They're lies and irrelevancies, yes.

>Fire fighter's made it to the impact zone minutes later the tower came crashing down. FACT.
And?

>All you have is paper thin theorys based on illogical evidence.
Like what?

>>12023009
All they have to do is release more frames of pentagone and it would put the whole thing to bed, but for some strange reason we only got 3 or 4 frame's? and its kinda hard to tell what we see. Wouldnt you agree?

>>12022960
No you to reread it. It's saying if someone claims to have a science degree background and they also claim crazy shit they're more likely to be engineers by degree. Nothing about profession. Reasonable to believe, engineers just have to apply science. They don't have to reason it

>>12022905
>REEEE REEEE IF I USE ALL CAPS MAYBE NO ONE WILL NOTICE I'M NOT ACTUALLY SAYING ANYTHING

>>12023021
Dont you think they would have radioed "motherbase the walls are sagging bad, shit real fucking hot in here the beams are glowing i think we should get the hell down and evacuate all personel"

they dont say that, they think they have a chance to knock the fire's down with a few hose line's and a couple of teams.

>>12023031
Why don't you just enhance with ai machine learning tech and net data crawls through video archives?

>>12022925
Where did I say it did? There is zero evidence for controlled demolition, plenty of evidence against it (the large amount of explosives required and its installation could not be hidden, the collapse was much messier than a controlled demolition, timed explosions weren't seen or heard), and plenty of evidence of the damage from the plane impact and fires. Keep spinning in circles.

>>12022928
It fell, get over it retard.

>>12023000
IIRC that's the term they use the most. You can find a full PDF of the WTC7 report here
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf
I used to have links for the other reports, but I can't find them at the moment. It's some surprisingly good reading if you have an interest in physics and the forensics of these kinds of disasters, and it's remarkable how much work went into the report. The simulation process for example was a multi-stage iterative approach: information on the debris, fire, and structural damage to the buildings were collected from witness testimony, photographic evidence, videos, etc. Step 1 fed all this information into a fire dynamics simulation to look at the spread of the fires and the flow of heat in the buildings. Step 2 took the results of the different fire dynamics sims and fed it into an ANSYS code to look at fire/structure interface interactions and determine the heating across the supports, which fed into a second ANSYS code to determine the thermal expansion and weakening of the different support elements to determine probable points of failure... then all that information finally got fed into an LS-DYNA rigid-body sim of the buildings to determine probable collapse sequences. Each full ANSYS case (the interactions and thermal effects) took six months of computational time *each* and the LS-DYNA cases took eight weeks each.

They also had a whole team looking at hypothetical blast scenarios to be sure they could confidently rule out explosive-aided demolition.

>>12022941
Common sense tells me you made up the ratio of engineers to architects and can't admit it.

>>12023019
>substitute apples for oranges and its still the same thing

>>12023090
>large amount of explosives required

some jet fuel and a plane.


everything you post is laughable hahahahaha

>>12022970
>Are you actually proclaiming that i cant hold a weight above my head with broken fingers?
No, I'm saying that if your fingers need to be unbroken to bear a weight, and your fingers break, the weight will drop below the level your unbroken fingers were holding them. It's a very simple analogy that you are desperate to misrepresent in every possible way.

>>12023104
>six months of computational time *each*
DAYUM!

>>12023031
>All they have to do is release more frames of pentagone and it would put the whole thing to bed
What does this even mean? What frames are missing and what would they resolve?

>>12023110
why do you keep trying to derail the thread by bringing up this topic? its irrelevant.

>>12023104
So they ruled it out?

>>12023135
the weight will drop below the level of broken fingers crushing them against the intact wrist joints which will take the weight easily.the weight wouldnt keep descending downwards through my perfectly fine body etc etc. BECAUSE my body has resistance to the force of the weight.

This is super basic stuff.

>>12023033
>Nothing about profession.
But that's complete bullshit, it says nothing about degrees and describes engineers as professionals. You're desperate.

>>12023145
No clear plane image was shown from the security hut footage of pentagon terror strike.

they only released 3 or 4 frame from a vidoe recording

>>12023146
>So they ruled it out?
Yes. In addition to all the practical difficulties with trying to either (a) rig the building in the middle of a fire/emergency scenario or (b) rig the building prior to the attacks and have everything miraculously survive the debris and fire damage without shit getting disabled or set off, they determined that the sound of demolition charges of the minimum yield and placement necessary to sabotage the building in a way that would produce the kind of collapse we saw would have been 130-140 dB at about half a mile from the building. You'd have indisputable explosion sounds in every single video and eyewitness testimony of the collapse.

>>12023054
>Dont you think they would have radioed "motherbase the walls are sagging bad
The walls sagging occurred immediately before the collapse so no. It's the floors that were sagging long before that. People on higher floors called in to 911 and reported the floors were failing but this information never got to those firefighters:

>As would be reported in the Daily News two weeks later, a woman called 911 from the 105th floor to say the floor beneath her was collapsing. A caller from the 106th floor then reported the 105th floor was "crumbling." A police helicopter, Air-Sea 14, radioed dire reports of its own.

>A warning went out over the police radio, but not all cops were both ready and able to evacuate. These included the courageous Officer Santos Valentin, who was buried yesterday. Some cops who did escape say they called verbal warnings to individual firefighters they encountered on the way out.

>By all accounts, no warnings ever reached the fire commanders. That meant the commanders had no warning they could even try to relay to the firefighters above. Palmer continued climbing floor after floor with his radio.

https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Farchives%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F11%2F2002-08-11_his_brave_voice_resounds.html&date=2008-12-26

>>12023146
>why do you keep trying to derail the thread by bringing up this topic? its irrelevant.
Shut the fuck up retard. I'm not the one who brought it up, lied about it, and failed to provide a source for it.

>>12023192
i think i'd be able to wire it in a day no problem
They used thermite to shape charge most of the important columns, then the rest can be done by using the weight of the building just like a normal controlled demo job.

>>12023173
>why isn't this footage from a late-90s era CCTV camera 4K at 48 FPS?

>>12023132
So please explain how controlled demolition was pulled off with no explosives, no installation, no trace whatsoever, and no explosions.

>>12023217
>i think i'd be able to wire it in a day no problem

>>12023173
You didn't answer either of my questions.

>>12023166
>the weight will drop below the level of broken fingers crushing them against the intact wrist joints which will take the weight easily.
Or not. Depends on the weight and the length of your fingers. Fucking retard.

You will never ever provide any quantitative analysis or even explain how NIST's analysis is wrong. You will just continue to repeat your pathetic argument from incredulity. Fuck off.

>>12023227
i cant explain that,because there was an installation,and there were explosions.

>>12023248
seething. kek

>>12023217
>They used thermite to shape charge most of the important columns
Proof? Wait, first show that thermite can actually do this and then show that it actually happened.

>>12023254
Then you should have evidence of both. But you don't.

>inb4 "I heard a loud sound, their explosion"

>>12023265
plenty videos on youtube if you only care to look.

military grade shape charges.

>>12023269
anon there are many video's and eye witness reports of explosions happening all day around ground zero.

How do you go from this? >pic related

>>12023279
to this.?>picrelated. Due to sagging of outer walls that supposedly were "pulled inwards" by the sagging melting floors? according to nist?

>>12023261
>no argument
Exactly as predicted.

>>12023271
I don't care to look, the burden of proof is on you. And where is the evidence it was actually used? Oh that's right you have none because it's a pathetically retarded conspiracy theory that only exists so that you can feel special.

>>12023275
A loud sound isn't an explosion.

>>12023285
>DURR HOW DO BIG THING FALL

>according to nist?
Oh right, I forgot you can't read.

>>12023297
>>12023302
>>12023307
>>12023314


Is pic related JET FUEL?
is pic related an Explosion?

IT CANT BE BOTH whats it gonna be shills?

jet fuel or explosion

>>12023355
>pic related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DpquoRxQl4


14 seconds he mentions explosion

>>12023307
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE2vTJMY7BA&index=8&list=PLEFsfRQkLNUyRDx6Vhj4SL04zN-axv0CR

>>12023355
>>12023358
Looks like an explosion caused by a plane filled with jet fuel colliding into a building. The plane filled with jet fuel colliding into the building immediately before might be a hint. Fucking retard.

>>12023398
And?

>>12023433
Is this supposed to show a loud sound is an explosion?

>>12023529
Why didn't any of the towers lean to the side and fall over? Wouldn't the added weight of a passenger jet in the side of the building make an uneven collapse more likely? Wouldn't the impact of the plane and the following explosion damage one side of the building more than the other?

>>12014582
Well done Anon.

>>12023784
>Why didn't any of the towers lean to the side and fall over?
Why would they?

>Wouldn't the added weight of a passenger jet in the side of the building make an uneven collapse more likely?
The collapse wasn't caused by added weight.

>Wouldn't the impact of the plane and the following explosion damage one side of the building more than the other?
The collapse wasn't primarily caused by damage from the plane collision.

Your just going to ignore the extensive research and simulations of the collapse and just keep starting your intedulity huh?

>>12023784
>Why didn't any of the towers lean to the side and fall over?
But they did.

So much for "controlled demolition."

>>12023784
>Why didn't any of the towers lean to the side and fall over?
All three towers did exhibit some lean as they collapsed, but if you're asking why they didn't fall over like a fucking falling tree I'm going to have to show you the door >>>/x/

>>12014386

>>12023903
>No
>No
>No
>Starting my intedulity
Yikes, man. You're gonna have to look hard for a raise if this is your best work.

>>12023919
Decent shop, but it did take a while.

>>12023921
>Let me post this infantile depiction and paint the poster crazy instead of discussing the raised questions at all.

D for effort overall. All dodges and slimeball tactics, zero creativity.

>>12023355
still no reply from the shils?

>>12023919
this is a textbook controlled demo.

>>12023537
>>12023398

Are you discounting Eye witness reports?

>>12023170
Okay
You can't read and you don't know the difference between having a degree and being a licensed professional engineer. You can fuck off dumby

>>12024083
ftfy

>>12024217
>Yikes, man. You're gonna have to look hard for a raise if this is your best work.
Not an argument, thanks for admitting the towers fell from fires started by plane impacts.

>>12024526
>no reply
>>12023529
Why do troofers constantly lie?

>>12024534
No controlled demo ever allows a building to lean over, and disperse debris everywhere. No controlled demo ever started with a massive fire whose smoke cloud could be seen for 50 miles. No controlled demo relied on the top portion of a building destroying the rest. Keep repeating your mantra with 0 reasoning and 0 evidence.

>>12024596
Eyewitness reports are often unreliable. Calling the impact sound and dust cloud from the collapse an explosion is not even an eyewitness report, it's just an incorrect description of what we can already see on video.

>>12024217
>Decent shop, but it did take a while.
Nice cope, you lose.

>>12024796
>You can't read and you don't know the difference between having a degree and being a licensed professional engineer.
I do, nothing that you quoted mentioned anything about degrees. Try again.