>>3709840 I find it hard to believe that two little planes can bring down a couple of buildings this large.

And that is why you're not worth talking to.

If you cannot even accept the possibility... can't even fathom it enough to form a "belief"... then you're not going to be convinced no matter what science is thrown at you that proves it.

9/11 happened pretty much the way people thought it did. Deal wit hit.

Maybe the terrorist's also planted Explosives?

i wish there were more janitors on /sci/ it would be so easy to clean up a slow board like this

let me deflate your entire world view

did you know that steel loses strength on a curve, like a transition from solid to taffy to liquid, instead of suddenly turning into a liquid at its melting point?

yeah

> jet fuel and other burning materials are able to get hot enough to turn the frame of the building into 'molten metal'
hahah no it doesn't.
However, it does burn hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel by several factors of safety.

You stupid faggot.

OP, the steel didn't need to turn molten. It just needs to be weakened enough to fail, which tends to happen when a Jumbo Jet fly's into the building. Once the top stories collapse, the whole thing is just a chain reaction, the force of the falling building makes the next floor down fail, then the next one and so on.

>>3709856
the special structural backbone of the twin towers made it especially vulnerable to multifloor fire

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

>>3709864
see
>>3709863

>all buildings are the same

no, dumbshit.

>>3709864

See >>3709845

Go away.

>still responding to truther trolls

>Implying in 50 years time truthers won't be still be trying to get the truth whether or not it was an inside jerb.

>>3709863
>>3709860

I just want to point out here, that should we accept that the jets were the primary cause of collapse, and given that the information in the two above posts is more or less correct, then the following should be pointed out for dark comic effect:

Given that the twin towers were specifically designed to be able to with stand impact by a jet liner, the architectural design of those two building constitute THE MOST ironic and catastrophic total engineering FAIL since the RMS Titanic

>>3709895

No shit that's part of what makes it so sad

>>3709895
>engineers
>capable of anything other than trial and error at the cost of human lives

pick one

You buffoons. They actually found molten steel. A lot of it.

Real scientists/architects, please?

>>3709911
>a pile of burning shit just collapsed into a pit

no shit there was molten steel.

>>3709909

>engineers
>not gay

pick one

>>3709895
Yeh, that would be fucking hard to design into a building into the first place though, whoever designed it probably shouldn't have made that claim in the first place. What size jetliner was it supposed to be able to withstand?

>>3709894
Holocaust denial, still going strong.

It's going to be sad, in 50 years there will be some loss of relevant government documents, and some truther will try to use that as evidence.

>>3709911

nice ironically relevant dub dubs.

but yea...um, when all that rubble was piled on top of each other that shit was pretty hot. ground zero was like a furnace for days. Just because there was molten steel at the bottom doesn't mean it was molten on the way down.

>>3709909
Not true. Nowadays, a lot of thought and factors of safety goes into designs before they are built (stress analysis etc.), especially in developed countries. Also, what the fuck are you talking about, all of science is founded on trial and error.

>>3709895
the titanic didn't fail, its abilities where simply exaggerated. a building not collapsing to a plane is an entirely different set of abilities.

>>3709911

>>3709927

>build and "unsinkable" or least compartmentalized-containment based ship

>build an icecube tray instead

yea sure, that's definitively not a total design fail.

>>3709926
deathtolls of the 20th century
>holocaust: 11million
>stalin: 15million
>mao: 50million
>engineers "trying shit out": 2.8billion

we have a winner

>>3709917

A 707, from what I heard. An admittedly smaller aircraft. As is that would have made a difference given the aforementioned multistory fires, structural compromises , and yes, jet fuel.

Hell I bet one of those buildings would have still gone down if there was a major enough non-jet related fire on any one of the upper floors

>>3709939
Sauce on this? 2.8 billion seems rather exorbitant

>>3709927
the twin towers didn't fail, their abilities were simply exaggerated. A ship not sinking after grazing an iceberg is an entirely different set of abilities.

>>3709953
>grazing an iceberg
>grazing

go watch the movie again dumbshit.

titanic sank because of onboard explosives

a lot of fucking retards in /sci/
>4chan
>internet
oh

>>3709954

>he thinks that the dipictions of physics in james cameron films are accurate

Dude, the Titanic DID graze the iceburg. Accounts of the event and underwater shots of the wreck even confirm this.

The welding job and the steel on the bolts that held the outer bulkheads together were utter shit, and gave out under the lateral pressure of the iceberg as it scraped by. The hull plates split in at the seems, allowing seawater to rush in and split the plates even further.

Suddenly, water, water everywhere.

Not even Geordi Laforge could've canceled that shit once it started.

OF COURSE I'M SURE THAT'S JUST WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE

PARLIAMENT DID TITANIC

>>3709983
>implying I'm talking about the cameron movie

oh and also
>citation needed

>>3709939

>>3709924
>>3709915
Where did the extra energy come from, to heat that metal enough to create molten steel which would, subsequently, stay molten for weeks? Not the friction, I can tell you that much. Where are you getting this idea that molten metal is a natural outcome of a building collapse? It wasn't in that farce of a 9/11 commission report. It has no basis in science. Lest we get into the fact that the buildings fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering, and completely throws out the notion that the buildings were designed to hold up all of the unsecured-weight of the structure above any given point in the event of partial structural failure.

Can you fathom how much material needs to be removed from underneath the collapsed section in order to allow the majority of the building to fall at such a velocity, and in such a direction?

Have you any proper education in any kind of sciences, at all?

This is seriously how religions are born. A ruling class makes up some sob-story bullshit, and the idiot masses follow along with it because it makes sense in their fabricated social-reality, since they're stupid enough to believe it.

9/11 was a goddamn joke on all of us.

>>3709996
>where did the extra energy come from
oh I don't know, fire, matter into energy. blah blah.

>heat that metal enough to create molten steel which would, subsequently, stay molten for weeks
jetfuel in a fire pit will do that

>fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering
maybe if you actually knew something about the structure of the towers. oh wait, retards like you only regurgitate shit other people told you. [spoiler]on youtube[/spoiler]

>buildings were designed to hold up all of the unsecured-weight of the structure above any given point in the event of partial structural failure.
engineers aren't gods, see>>3709939

>Can you fathom how much material needs to be removed from underneath the collapsed section in order to allow the majority of the building to fall at such a velocity, and in such a direction?
maybe if you actually knew something about the structure of the towers. oh wait, retards like you only regurgitate shit other people told you. [spoiler]on youtube[/spoiler]


>Have you any proper education in any kind of sciences, at all?
I don't and I still shit all over you.

>>3710000

>this guys just posted everything i was about to post
>quad zeros to boot

[ ] Told
[ ] Fucking told
[X] Knights of the Told Republic

>>3710000
Hey, look, it's fucking nothing.

>>3710003
>quads
>fucking nothing

Denial General

First and last time in /sci/....

OP=Sheeple

>>3710000
I don't support conspiracy theories but get the fuck out of this board

>>3709996

If the buildings really "fell in such a manner that defies all of our current understanding of physics and engineering"

then that would also mean it couldn't have been explosives because when a building comes down from explosives, that's pretty well within our understanding of physics and engineering. unless of course you mean what you said and thus you are implying that aliens used an advanced space-time distortion device to bring the buildings down.

In which case it would still be within our understanding of physics but not of engineering.

>>3710004
Keep shit-posting. It makes me hard.

>>3710013
>shit posting

Projecting General

>>3710011
Do I really need to specify the context of "planes flying into the bitches"?

Fuck this, I'm going to bed.

I challenge /sci to melt metal with jet fuel. You will not be able to do it.

>>3710031
>unfamiliar with the concept of an oven

where you from? caveland?

>>3710032
>hi, I heated up your 60 inch thick long steel columns
>to 1400 degrees
>with jet fuel
> in 56 minutes

So.... building 7?

Who cares how it collapse,
Doesn't change the fact the US government was involved.

>>3710031
Cavemen did it with fucking wood.
I think jet fuel is a little bit more potent then wood.
Lrn2think for yourself.
(Yes, thinking for yourself will lead you to correctly believing terrorist took a couple planes and flew them into buildings.)

>>3709840
Class Detla Fires and class Bravo fires have gotten this hot multiple times. As seen in the case of the USS Forestall and the USS George Washington, simple aircraft based fires are massive and devastating when uncontrolled, and those only involved smaller fighter craft, unlike the large bodies of the airliners that hit the world trade center.

Re: 7 WTC, this is a common incident that bombs use to destroy terrorists, overpressure. Being exposed to massive amounts of heat and pressure can destroy a target, which is what atomic weapons, as well as large bombs such as the MOAB do.

Try this. Have hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel. Next add in the vast amount of flammable items in the buildings. Finally have this conflagration rage in an enclosed area where heat and pressure can build up

Paging Captain Obvious.

>>3709996
Yes actually, this is the same thing that happened to the Forestall and George Washington, which nearly destroyed both aircraft carriers. Never underestimate the energy stored in metal, combined with the hollowing out of the metal core, which lead to an imbalance. In the case of the George Washington, the fire caused from burning materials in the electronics caused its main drive shaft, a massive piece of metal to melt, disabling its main drive systems until major repairs happened. Would you like to know more about fires?

(In the Navy we are concerned with metal fires, as they are our worst nightmare, and what we train to fight, and prevent.)

Metal fires tend to burn for long times, and the only good treatment is simply to toss the metal overboard. However, buildings do not have this option, and the metal will burn, destroying the building proper.

>>3709847

My thoughts exactly. They did have a van blow up in the parking garage in the ninety's, so why not have bombs planted to go off after the planes collide????

>>3710126
Try magnesium fires for example. They produce a huge burst of white-hot sparks when water is applied because the temperature is high enough that the liquid actually breaks down into its molecular components (hydrogen and oxygen), which then ignite.

>>3710138
Explosives have common resdues which would have been noticed by multiple experts. Due to the nature of the world trade center site and the disposal of the ashes, it would have been impossible to cover it up. (The Ashes are easily assessable at a large landfill facility only 1 hour away, and the air covered huge areas of New York City.

>>3710140
NAVCOM on magnesium fires.
Class Delta Fire
Cause: Burning Metals (Magnesium,)
Treatment: Toss Overboard.

There isn't even a suggested treatment, which makes submarine fires .. well fightable, but HARD.

>>3710149
I bet they spark like crazy when you throw them into the drink.

You 9/11 folk are worse than the moon landing guys.

>>3710155
They spark and stop, since its usually fighter jets that are the D sources.

>>3710163

"Get this wreckage over to Area 51 for examination immediately!"

"But sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing..."

"Then we'll have to REALLY land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell them to 'Get off their fannies!'"

A "recent" bush fire in Australia generated enough heat to make molten metal.

bush fire = started by trees.

Or did the Australian government plant explosives all over the country =.=

I've seen a burnt down truck in the desert that had the steel melted out of the bumper, all that was left was a paper thin chrome husk of a bumper.

>>3709864
b25's are tiny baby compared to 767 jumbo jets

also b25's are turboprop (propeller)
whereas 767 is jet powered\

quit being retarded

>>3710208
NO! The US government planted thermite in in order to generate more support for their coverup!

>>3710163
Tell me about it.
At least the moon landing guys are right

>HURRR DURRRR THE PLANES DIDN'T REALLY MAKE THE BUILDINGS BLOW UP IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

so, why didn't the government just roll with the "terrorists blew up the wtc with a controlled demolition" story?

>HURRR DURRR WAKE UP SHEEPLE

>>3710230

Turboprops are pretty much jet engines with a propeller connected to the shaft anyway.

>>3710234
Because they tried it already in 1993, you derp.

>>3710237
and how is that a counter-argument?

oh wait, they're like the villains in every 90's series: they can only use a method once ever, instead of trying it again with the knowledge and improvements on what went wrong last time

>>3710235
no.
they are two different things

one is a tiny plane with propellers
the other is a huge fucking plane with jets

VERY DIFFERENT
infact they both use different fuels

so, by your logic
a diesel semi-tractor is the same as a minivan

>truthers

>>3710233
>2011
>Still thinking the moon landing was fake
ISHYGDDT

>>3710240
Because if they did and it worked, people would have been pissed about security not being tight enough, since there had already been an attack in the past.

It's like you're really stupid.

Wait a minute...

Assuming the government really did it, do they really have to collapse those towers?

4 simultaneous plane hijackings pretty much screams "major terrorist attack" to me. I don't think they really need to collapse the tower to get what they want.

Unless, of course, they just want those extra body count.

>>3710257

Stop.

>>3710257
They didn't "do" it.
They,
Funded + Trained al queda.

Look into Al Queda's relationship with the United States during al quedas lifetime.

>>3710244

>>3710266

Yes, we know this. It's not relevant.

It would also not be the first time that US meddling in foreign affairs has come back to bite them.

>>3710257
The fed came and took all of the steel from ground zero within days. No one knows where it went.

>>3710271
How is this not relevant to 9/11?
Without US assistance, Bin Laden would likely have been killed by the Soviets a long time before 9/11.

>>3710234
then they wouldnt be justified for the shit TSA pulls at the airports these days

>>3710280 How is this not relevant to 9/11?

It's not relevant to the topic here, I meant, since this is involving truther conspiracy theories.

>>3710280
>implying Soviets can do the job better than the USA.
I wouldn't go to /k and say that... unless you are a troll, then go to /k

"Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them."

What I am saying would correspond with the second part of truther claims. That the government knew ahead of time that al queda was planning to attack the United States using hijackers and did nothing, not a single thing, to stop them.

>>3710297
Let me ask you this, would the Soviet Union have lost their invasion of Afghanistan if the United States hadn't helped the Afghani's by providing them with weapons and training?

Because if the Soviet Union had Won in Afghanistan, the Taliban would never had won power then.

>>3710301

Believe what you want, not like I can stop you.

I am going to think differently of you for doing so, tho.

>implying the buildings weren't brought down with help from an outside source
they were drought down by a outside source, a FUCKING PLANE.
I'd like to see you survive being hit by a plane.
ib4 it irrelevant

conspiracy theories that only focus on a small number of fact are irrelevant.
now get to /x where you belong or show me some math and sciences that proves a build that has been hit by a plane does not have its structural integrity affected.

>>3710303
What is Americas excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan?
the sovit occupation is no different to the american intervention, both shitty, costing a lot of lives and a lot of money,
Is the CIA to blame for this.
Go and ask /k, this is more there thing.
We like science and math here not speculation.

>>3709895

>Implying the sinking of the RMS Titanic wasn't an inside job

>>3710303
Is the CIA the reason the British empire lost Afghanistan twice in the 19th century?

Blame mysterious organisations, first rule of conspiracies with no proof.

>>3710301
as the us airforce
you just can run around shooting down every airplane that doesn't radio back to you

it's pretty simple

>shoot down a plane carrying civilians only to find out it wasn't hijacked

or

>let a hijacked plane carrying civilians fly around freely

which do you think the airforce/gov't would rather deal with

a huge fucking snafu in which they kill civilians on their own soil
or
an actual terrorist attack

>>3710000

>matter into energy

>>3710337
> hijackers usually demand a ransom.
risk killing everyone when there is a chance of saving them and bring the terrorist to justice.

>jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to.... etc
>doesn't take into account all of the paper inside of an office building
>doesn't take into account all the wood chairs and furnite inside of an office building
>doesn't take into account all of the plastics inside of an office building

Sure, you can twist the data so it looks like you have a very small chance of being right, but if you're gonna call yourself a truther atleast be intelligent enough to address ALL of the circumstances involved.

>>3709840
> building into 'molten metal'
the buildings didn't melt OP, they collapsed, haven't you seen the footage?

>>3710339
>he think fire gets it energy from peter pan

1)Impact blows fireproof coating off of the beams
2)burning fuel heats beams causing them to sag
3)sagging beams put end connection bolts in shear
4)connections weren't designed for a shearing force(I think the bolts were only 5/8")
5)beams fall, impacting beams below
6)dominoes

>>3710415

>5)beams fall, liquifying all the beams below while simultaneously pulverizing all supporting concrete in 50 floors untouched by heat.

FTFY

>>3710432
>implying the liquid fuel stayed on the impacted floors

>>3710441

>Implying that the liquid fuel ran up and down the stairwells and service elevators and distributed itself evenly among the 95 floors that weren't impacted by the plane, lit itself on fire and got to work weakening the steel columns on all 110 floors simultaneously within 45 minutes.

plenty of victims heard explosions from the boiler room.

how does an airplane crash 80 feet in the air cause explosions underground?

How do reporters say building 7 already fell down minutes before it fell down and wasn't even touched?

A 747 isn't enough to take down an entire 110 story structure. Traces of explosive material all over ground zero. It makes sense why they removed it within seconds.

sci has to be the dumbest board not to realize this was all a setup

>>3710468
>Implying metal doesn't conduct.
>Implying anyone that could observe what happened inside lives to tell.
>Implying you know what you're talking about.
>Implying you're not a fag.

Here's an actual archfag who has spoken to an experienced civil engineer about this, so listen the fuck up.

Jetliners are heavy chunks of metal. They flew into the towers at about 600 kmh, fully laden with fuel. Thats a lot of mass going fucking fast, not to even mention the fuel. The wings cut through structural members. Once a certain number of floors start collapsing, its really all over as the floors below arn't strong enough to stop dead all of that weight landing on them. This is known as the pancake effect and its really common sense.

The second part: picture a thin wooden dowel. If you compress it vertically its very stiff. However as soon as it deflects even a little sideways, it becomes very easy to subsequently snap. This is the same as the wtc columns. The impact of the planes caused the beams to bend or "wobble" ever so slightly off center axis, and at that point the compressive strength of the concrete is nullified and the whole thing "snaps."

TLDR fucking giant planes did it faggots, deal with it. This is from someone who agrees the government would not hesitate to kill thousands of people in a false flag attack but come on - 9/11 is pretty clear cut.

fucking sheeple it was obviously ancient aliens

Archfag here again, just to make it clear for the 9000th time, THE FIRE DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT THE STEEL BEAMS, it merely has to heat them sufficiently to weaken them to the point where they will fail under load, which is well before melting point.

>Implying metal doesn't conduct.
Implying one smoldering office fire on one corner of 4 floors will heat all the steel in a 110 storey building into red hot pokers on all four sides of the building
>Implying anyone that could observe what happened inside lives to tell.
Implying 100+ professional firefighters weren't broadcasting live from the building every minute.
>Implying you know what you're talking about.
Implying I'm not pwning you
>Implying you're not a fag.
Implying you haven't run out of retorts
Implying you had an argument to begin with

>>3710518
>Implying one smoldering office fire on one corner of 4 floors will heat all the steel in a 110 storey building into red hot pokers on all four sides of the building
Implying that happened.
Implying you would know if that happened.
>Implying 100+ professional firefighters weren't broadcasting live from the building every minute.
Implying they were anywhere near the actual impact zone.

>>3710512

The fire was on like about 4 floors you fucktard. And in one building it was just one corner of 3 or 4 floors so if anything the building should have tilted over not simultaneously self pulverized on 110 floors and crumbled to dust into it's own footprint.

>>3710525

Yeah fucktard, four floors of inferno from a fucking jet plane is enough to collapse said floors, and the weight of four floors collapsing suddenly onto one is enough to collapse the floor below it and there you go. Its not rocket surgery.

>>3710525
You can see it covering at least six floors in this picture.

The fire burned out of control for seven hours. No firefighters no sprinklers. You're telling me it never spread?

>>3710521
>Implying that happened.
>Implying you would know if that happened.
Implying there aren't countless videos showing it happened
Implying there isn't testimony from survivors and firemen confirming it happened
>Implying they were anywhere near the actual impact zone.
Implying they weren't in and around the impact zone trying to contain fires while radioing out their positions
Implying heat that can melt steel won't melt firefighters
Implying even when the towers collapsed the video doesn't clearly show smoke coming from less than 10 storeys

>>3710532
What are you saying?
>it happened
What happened?
The steel being really fucking hot? That's what've been saying all along, you fucktard.

>>3710532
Also
>heat that can melt steel won't [will] melt firefighters
That's why it's not surprising that nobody witnessed melting steel (and lived to tell) now is it?

>>3710528
Nope, even if 4 floors did simultaneusly collapse(which they didn't) then the force they exert downwards(force not weight) is not enough to simultaneously demolish 50+ stories. Each floor was built to withstand much much more than the weight of all the floors above it. The kinetic energy gained by 4 floors simultaneously turning to powder is not enough to vaporize all the floors beneath them concurrently.
>>3710531

That's WTC7 I was talking about WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 was also clearly demolished you can tell by looking at the collapse; there isn't even an argument for WTC7 since it wasn't hit by any significant amount of debris and should have been saved.

>>3710547

Where is your source for each floor being able to withstand the weight of four floors above, let alone the entire building. I call bullshit.

>>3710541
>That's why it's not surprising that nobody witnessed melting steel (and lived to tell) now is it?

wtf are you talking about? None of the firefighters died due to heat, they died when the building collapsed and buried them. But you're saying the heat was enough to mysteriously melt the entire steel frame supporting 110 storeys

Ok. So the buildings are theoretically strong enough to withstand the load of a jumbo jet slamming into it. yes...

However. What isn't taken into account is the jet fuel which softens the metal support structures inside the building. SOFTENS, not melts.
Now this is the crucial part. The jet fuel fire is feeding a constant high temperature that heats the support structures to extreme temperatures, but at the same time 800ft above sea level winds are buffeting the structure from the outside, causing a temperature differential which puts stress on the structures. this builds, and the structures crack, distort then lose integrity altogether and fail.
To give a simpler example, when you get a really hot glass and put it under a cold tap it shatters because of heat difference.

Simultaneously, we have the sheer amount of weight pressing from the above floors pressing down with thousands of tonnes of force on a relatively small area.
The laws of inertia state that no winds are going to influence how something so heavy as the floors above the damaged zone falls. The massive weight is so large it can't be influenced, and eventually, with the tower severely weakened, it comes crashing down on itself, just plain flattening the floors below it.

Those are just a few aspects of how they fell. Architecture and other things also play a huge role.

OP was quite obviously trolling, but since all you /sci/entists must prove your intellect, of course you all flock to it.

>>3710554
No, I'm not saying that the entire steel frame melted, that's retarded. I'm saying the proposition that the steel melted isn't supported by evidence, nor does it cause a problem to the mainstream theory if some of the steel melted.
tl;dr "how does steel melting" is irrelevant and nonsense

>>3710487
where are the remnants of the plane that hit the pentagon?

a plane hit the pentagon right?
dickwit

>>3710487

Love how you can't refute any of this post so you come up with a whole different slant regarding a completely different building. Stay classy.

>>3710551

>Where is your source for each floor being able to withstand the weight of four floors above

Floor #1 supported the weight of floors#2 through floor#110(that's 109 floors above it)
Floor #2 supported the weight of floors#3 through floor#110(that's 108 floors above it)
Floor #3 supported the weight of floors#4 through floor#110(that's 107 floors above it)
Floor #4 supported the weight of floors#5 through floor#110(that's 106 floors above it)
and so on...
Each one of the floors were built similarly to each other so the higher you go in the buildings the less downward force would have to be supported since the amount of mass above them would become less and less.

So derrrrp if floor#1 can support 109 floors above it then it can surely support 4 floors? The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the kinetic energy gained from the momentum generated by 4 floors simultaneously collapsing(if they even did that) is going to be more force than the floors beneath were designed to handle.

It's good to see the US has it's own 50 cent club, ruthlessly injecting FUD into any reasoned discussion that might expose its atrocities.

>>3710570

No, you don't understand. The FLOOR doesn't support jack shit, the COLUMNS support all the stories above it. I'm talking about the floor, which is a concrete slab with steel mesh inside. When that weight presses on the floor, of course its going to collapse. Its only meant to hold up people and shit.

>>3710570
>See a plane fly into a building
>Sees structural damage to a buttload of floors.
>Said building collapses.
>???
>The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the kinetic energy gained from the momentum generated by 4 floors simultaneously collapsing(if they even did that) is going to be more force than the floors beneath were designed to handle.
>The burden of proof is on YOU
Hahaha.
7/10

>>3710532
firefighters don't melt stoooooopid!

Ok, I'm going to shut all you conspiracy theorist's up with one simple statement. Let's say that the whole '9/11' thing was a government conspiracy and they planted bombs etc. The plan still requires two planes to crash into the buildings, no getting around that. My argument is this, if the government did plan it, what government employees where willing to sacrifice their lives for this operation and not ask questions? I mean it's absolutely fucking ludicrous what you are saying.

>>3710576
Your theory sucks, if you (and, by extension, the government) are to be believed, we would have been left with a perfect central column standing 100 floors tall.

Leave the science to the honest people who actually have an education instead of sucking the cock of nist you uneducated FUD spreader.

>>3710583
You're not a scientist. Don't pretend to be one.
And even if you are, you're a retard, but more importantly, you're not a structural engineer.

>>3710586
You're not being honest about your motivations, don't pretend to be.

>>3709840

>I find it hard to believe that two little planes can bring down a couple of buildings this large.
>..as well as magically topple another building the next block over without touching it.

Bitches don't know about my argument from incredulity logical fallacy.

I really don't have anything else to contribute to this conversation than the fact that opening a thread with a logical fallacy should have gotten you called out on it.

So instead of joining the debate, I give you guys a gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU

Also, cleavage.

>>3710590
OK, you got me.
Luckily, we have your IP address. Expect a knock.

>>3710596
Take me down and everything I have on you will be released. There will be no hiding, the masses will descend and force the truth from your last breath.

>>3710599
We have our ways.
Maybe we want you to release your data. Keep the people in doubt.

>>3710576

>No, you don't understand. The FLOOR doesn't support jack shit, the COLUMNS support all the stories above it. I'm talking about the floor, which is a concrete slab with steel mesh inside.

When I said FLOOR I meant the STEEL AND CONCRETE SUPPORT STRUCTURES on each floor as being the part of the FLOOR responsible for exerting enough upward force and resisting the downward force from all the mass above it consisting of multiple FLOORS all constructed the same way.

I'm referring to each FLOOR as a sort of a logical entity here since each storey/floor was constructed almost identically to the other 109 floors in the building, amirite?

>>3710578
>Sees structural damage to a buttload of floors.
The structural damage was restricted to about 4 or 5 floors where the plane impacted. That's like 5 out of 110. Not a buttload. Oh and afaik the main support structure of the building was a steel mesh around the center was it not? The inner steel "spinal column" had most of the steel while the outer areas impacted by the 2nd plane was more of a secondary support structure.

>>3710599
I'm calling bullshit.

Hell, I'm not even that guy.

If you were some "Freedom fighter" you wouldn't even bother to threaten anyone. If you believed in the things you purport to believe in then you would feel it is your civic duty as a real American (Well insert your country of origin here) to have the truth out in the open unfettered by personal gain or notoriety.
That you would threaten to dox anyone means you actually have nothing on anyone that would be worth a damn. Otherwise you wouldn't be on 4chan and posting about how the government did this or how you are a freedom fighter for that or that you have key information but are going to threaten others in order to get them to do your will.

How pathetic perhaps this lack of logical reasoning and your subconscious desires for notoriety and respect is what brought you to this point. perhaps if you realized you had to earn respect and had to stand out in some way to really get noticed you would not have ended up this way.

I pity you. I really do.

>>3710606

>Walk into a /sci/ency thread about 911 physics
>Engage in conversation with 10 year old troll who probably lives outside the US
>Entertain the idea he might be a "Freedom fighter"
>Continue being trolled, burying all legit debate

mfw I know this thread will be hijacked by trolls and then buried or deleted

>Arguments about the strength of heated steel.
>Implying the entire metal frame of the building isn't fireproofed.
>Explosion only happened in tiny section of the building, only removed fireproofing on like 10 - 15 floors, steel was only heated on those floors.
>Implying the building was heated downwards to the ground floor from the top through intact fireproofing everywhere without the magic fire burning every single last person inside.
>Tower in the left of picture hit at 2/3rds of it's height, collapsed from the top floor down instead of at the point of impact.
>Implying heat physics matters then ignoring basic information like the fact the majority of the building didn't even get hit, look at the fucking tower on the right, look at it.
>Implying the jet fuel didn't burn up in the explosion, look at the tower on the left.
>took like an hour and a half for the buildings to COLLAPSE, not partially crumble, not to weaken, to completely and utterly collapse and pulverise.

To recap

Fuel that wasn't there remotely heated 100% of the buildings interior steel to structural failure bypassing the fireproofing. The remote properties of heat started random fires up and down the building.
Because of this magic remote heat we can ignore the fact that the fuel burned away in the explosion.
We can also ignore the fact that even with a full tank not enough fuel would be present to even paint the outside of the building. We can ignore this because of the magic infinite remote heating properties of fire. A similar effect can be found when you turn on your stove and your door handles becomes unbearably hot for no reason yet your frying pan is merely warm.
Random 'interior explosions' all the way down to the lobby were actually the remote heat manifesting itself.
Everyone reporting explosions ignorantly.

>>3710620
>Apparently did not realize that there is very little physics discussion going on in the thread anyways.

>MFW bad reading comprehension.

>>3709840

In a controlled demolition, the shaped charges are put on the support structures at the BOTTOM of the building. The building collapses form the BOTTOM UP... Watch the film of the towers.. it collapses from the TOP DOWN. Idiot.

>>3710623
>Arguments about the strength of heated steel.
(Learn to tensile strength)
>Implying the entire metal frame of the building isn't fireproofed.
(Implying fireproofing wasn't knocked off or destabilized due to force of impact and resonance caused by impact)
>Explosion only happened in tiny section of the building, only removed fireproofing on like 10 - 15 floors, steel was only heated on those floors.
(Forgetting what happens when objects hit other objects resulting in the "Butterfly fan" of damage within a structure, human body or otherwise)
>Implying the building was heated downwards to the ground floor from the top through intact fireproofing everywhere without the magic fire burning every single last person inside.
(lolwut?)
>Tower in the left of picture hit at 2/3rds of it's height, collapsed from the top floor down instead of at the point of impact.
(mfw videos endlessly show the collapse initiated at the point of damage)
>Implying heat physics matters then ignoring basic information like the fact the majority of the building didn't even get hit, look at the fucking tower on the right, look at it.
(lol this statement is hilarious on its own)
>Implying the jet fuel didn't burn up in the explosion, look at the tower on the left.
(Implying that an office full of furniture and other flammable objects such as flooring (carpet) walls (Gypsum, which contained nitrates, sulfates, carbonates, and other sources for immolation) would not have caught on fire by jet fuel being sprayed in the instant of impact just prior to immolation and plane destruction)
>took like an hour and a half for the buildings to COLLAPSE, not partially crumble, not to weaken, to completely and utterly collapse and pulverise.
(Implying this is something that is unusual considering structural dynamics...)

MFW..

>>3710623
This magical fire is mainly fuelled by oxygen and fuel and anything flammable in an office building, e.g. furniture, carpet, some structure (doors, banisters etc). but it would remain concentrated.

>>3710570

This is basically saying if you believe in the pancake effect then what is your reasoning for the building to hold itself up in the first place if it is that flimsy. He's right, If the floors could hold up 100+ floors above then the collapse would have ment jack shit starting at the top.

If the building had columns and the floors were structurally insignificant then the pancake effect would destroy the weak floors and leave a skeleton of columns, they would be so strong that 50 planes wouldn't have taken them down.

The pancake effect in both scenarious is bullshit, it's so bad an explanation.
Especially when you consider one of the towers fell from the top but was hit 2/3rd of the way up.
What happened there? Surely the top third would have fallen apart seperately as it ploughed into the bottom 2/3rds?
But no, it falls in an aesthetically pleasing manner regardless of the information given in the official story.

>>3710479
>Traces of explosive material all over ground zero.
the chemical trace material, that people say were from explosive are also found in paint...

>>3710640
And drywall.
Especially the "nano thermite" that they trumpet.

Steven Jones once gave the exact chemical makeup of his nano thermite and then said that traces of the chemicals in nano thermite were found at ground zero.

However, even the most basic thought process should have produced "Is there anything else that can produce these chemical signatures?"

Lo and behold:
An entire tower made of iron (Steel)
Drywall (Gypsum with multiple sulphates and nitrates as well as trace magnesium)
Cars (Pretty much all of above but higher in magnesium) especially the nice shiney pulverized ones.

So in essence, there is little reason to believe that said chemical signatures could have come from anything BUT what is normally found in an office building and that thermite doesn't even need to be invoked to explain their presence.


L2 science conspiracy theorists....

>>3710632

>(Implying fireproofing wasn't knocked off or destabilized due to force of impact and resonance caused by impact)
>knocked off
>Seriously? Forces this great and yet the windows weren't even all broken.....you are scraping the barrel.

>(Forgetting what happens when objects hit other objects resulting in the "Butterfly fan" of damage within a structure, human body or otherwise)
No the remote heating theory covered this completely.

>everything else you said
Fireproofing, fireproofing everywhere

there is not one single recorded control demolition where a building is collapsed top to bottom.

there is however recorded structural failings that have led to building collapsing from top to bottom.

there is all so on record another tower block being destroyed by a plane, and its black box was not recovered.

conspirators either over look this or use it as a example to blame Israel.

Conspirators are like creationist, they only look at selected cause and past examples and focus there time and energy in trying to find the smallest of holes.

> windows weren't even all broken
did you actually watch the footage?
or have you forgotten over time?

oh you guys... how funny

why would the goverment people even conspire if it wasn't for our own good? it all keeps the prices low, our wages high, and all for being happy and world-dominant. Without wars or able to attract lousy masses to spout propagandist shouts for war we wouldn't be as succesful today as we are. I say..MORE WARS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

Here's building 7 clearly just exploding like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

No one had ever taken down skyscrapers before, clearly steel buildings won't just crumble like this and need a different method.
I can't believe people think that the remenants of an exploded jet fuel tank have more energy than fucktons of explosives. OH MY GOD + office furniture and drywall, of course, energy crisis solved people. We can smelt with burning office furniture! We can make vehicle fuel from burning office furniture! It's more powerful than burning jet fuel.
WE CAN DEMOLISH SKYSCRAPERS WITH BURNING OFFICE FURNITURE.
Turns out office furniture is the pinnacle of human invention.

>>3710662

not comparable.