9/11

[The balkens]

Holy shit it's like we know what we're talking about. not.

Maybe the planes were holograms. And there was actually small nukes inside the buildings.

Nukes cant melt asbestos.

[Kelinfort]

Maybe the planes were holograms. And there was actually small nukes inside the buildings.

Nukes cant melt asbestos.

Nukes vitrify asbestos.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Holy shit it's like we know what we're talking about. not.

Maybe the planes were holograms. And there was actually small nukes inside the buildings.

That would have left for instant collapse, considering the blast taking around 40% of all energy released during a nuke.

[Lockdownn]

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

https://youtu.be/fhm2jU-C1JU?t=118

notice how it is weak enough to bend without melting

now imagine the guy is using the force of a building

How on earth did that fuel spread all across the building then? In reality if what you say is true then a partial collapse is all we should've saw.

there are a lot of flammable things in a bloody office. come on.

And that flame would not of kept it's high temperature for the duration needed to cover the entire building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

A car can't melt your femur in a crash, but you can't walk. I wonder why.

Again. depends on the structure.

By that logic, only the effected area should've been destroyed. Your femur may break but you can still move your arms.

[United Marxist Nations]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

Well, as someone else already pointed out, jet fuel actually can melt steel beams, rather easily. But, you are right that there was a demolition: the demolition of a big jet airliner filled with jet fuel hitting at sub-sonic speeds. Had it been going at, say, a slow speed, then it might not do much; however, at such speeds, the force of the plane hitting the building would have been immense; this impact was so great that it crushed through the superstructure/facade of the building and readily exposed the structure itself to the heat of the flames. It was under these conditions that the upper floors began to collapse, creating a second impact, this time of a scale dwarfing the first, with each successive floor adding to the avalanche of concrete and steel, until, finally, it was a nigh-unstoppable mass coming down at high speed.

Also, if the government were to fake it, don't you think they would find a way to do it that can't be disproved by a single sentence?

[Empire of Narnia]

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

Why not? I can debate just as well as anybody.

[Alyakia]

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

https://youtu.be/fhm2jU-C1JU?t=118

notice how it is weak enough to bend without melting

now imagine the guy is using the force of a building



there are a lot of flammable things in a bloody office. come on.

And that flame would not of kept it's high temperature for the duration needed to cover the entire building.

A car can't melt your femur in a crash, but you can't walk. I wonder why.

Again. depends on the structure.

By that logic, only the effected area should've been destroyed. Your femur may break but you can still move your arms.

when your femur bends and eventually snaps you fall down. huh. are you sure you didn't just argue against yourself?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

And that flame would not of kept it's high temperature for the duration needed to cover the entire building.

Light 90,000 L of jet fuel. See if a tarp helps.

[Kelinfort]

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

https://youtu.be/fhm2jU-C1JU?t=118

notice how it is weak enough to bend without melting

now imagine the guy is using the force of a building



there are a lot of flammable things in a bloody office. come on.

And that flame would not of kept it's high temperature for the duration needed to cover the entire building.

A car can't melt your femur in a crash, but you can't walk. I wonder why.

Again. depends on the structure.

By that logic, only the effected area should've been destroyed. Your femur may break but you can still move your arms.

The effected area was destroyed, but it affected the rest of the building. Just like third degree burns can kill you if they cover only 4% of your body.

[United Marxist Nations]

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

https://youtu.be/fhm2jU-C1JU?t=118

notice how it is weak enough to bend without melting

now imagine the guy is using the force of a building



there are a lot of flammable things in a bloody office. come on.

And that flame would not of kept it's high temperature for the duration needed to cover the entire building.

A car can't melt your femur in a crash, but you can't walk. I wonder why.

Again. depends on the structure.

By that logic, only the effected area should've been destroyed. Your femur may break but you can still move your arms.

People are not buildings that are linear. When one floor collapsed onto another, it took with it the weight of all the floors above it. All it would take is a single floor having to give way, because each floor which collapsed under the weight of the collapsing section would just add to the force crushing the building.

[Lockdownn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP7dnI4Ajwc

[Apollinis]

You actually believe in that meme?

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

I'd like to note that there is an almost cosmic degree of irony involved in someone taking 10 seconds out, from a defence of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, in order to denigrate someone else's ability to debate.

[Alyakia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP7dnI4Ajwc

yes? and?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP7dnI4Ajwc

I hate having to repeat myself. Time. And. Time. Again.

Fucking listen now. I'm going to take you through a class session, pay attention.

Every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure . With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

The joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.



Ho-lee sh-eet why.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

You actually believe I'll debate with someone with to likes of you? C-mon, who do you take me for.

I'd like to note that there is an almost cosmic degree of irony involved in someone taking 10 seconds out, from a defence of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, in order to denigrate someone else's ability to debate.

That said, I'd hate to be the guy the 9/11 truther looks at and says: "woah, too extreme for my blood."

[Lockdownn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP7dnI4Ajwc

yes? and?

Basic building structure.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

yes? and?

Basic building structure.

You're destroying the building from the bottom, rather than the top, you're forgetting the burning 90,000 L of jet fuel that weaken the steel support system, and you forget pretty much the entire design of WTC

Wow, I never thought anyone would be this persistent on such a dead and proven topic when already proven wrong. Just. Wow.

[Skytecnia]

Well, can we?

(I know I really shouldn't be posting something like this here, but I honestly felt like it. Also, here is a comic. I think you would like reading it. http://imgur.com/gallery/83xZp)

[The Krogan]

I thought there was already a thread dedicated to conspiracy theories?

[Lockdownn]

Basic building structure.

You're destroying the building from the bottom, rather than the top, you're forgetting the burning 90,000 L of jet fuel that weaken the steel support system, and you forget pretty much the entire design of WTC

Wow, I never thought anyone would be this persistent on such a dead and proven topic when already proven wrong. Just. Wow.

I just love how you believe government approved data.

[Lockdownn]

Well, can we?

(I know I really shouldn't be posting something like this here, but I honestly felt like it. Also, here is a comic. I think you would like reading it. http://imgur.com/gallery/83xZp)

Sure, have fun.

[Farnhamia]

I thought there was already a thread dedicated to conspiracy theories?

*puts a Mod crown on your head* You try keeping this thread to only one aspect of the September 11 attacks. Go on. *waits*

[Librica]

Theories are as close to a fact as the scientific method gets. By this logic, the towers were hit by cruise missiles.

[Lockdownn]

Theories are as close to a fact as the scientific method gets.

It's only a fact if the government approves....

[Washington Resistance Army]

Theories are as close to a fact as the scientific method gets. By this logic, the towers were hit by cruise missiles.

In some peoples minds they probably were, after all video can be faked!