Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(135):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
135 comments displayed.
Reply
+69
#2 - kolya (01/01/2016) [-]
Reply
+3
User avatar #1 - Zaxplab (01/01/2016) [-]
Can anyone actually explain this?


Is a place impact really enough to make that much of a difference?
Reply
+1
#21 to #1 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
It was the building style of the twin towers that where the cause of their demise. It was a new way, that we dont do on anything.

Theres a reason for that. If a plane hits them, they could fall over... oh **** . Wait.
Reply
+1
User avatar #109 to #1 - dammriver (01/02/2016) [-]
The impact of a plane would have caused a very significant amount of friction, and caused a gaping hole in the building itself. That giant hole means that any support structures that were in the area are now gone, which can (obviously) compromise the integrity of said structure. Also, if you notice, the fire in Dubai was very visible. This means that there was definitely a lot of ventilation, which also means that the fire wouldn't get "super hot".

With the WTC, you could see a lot of smoke but no significant fire. The smoke says that there was ventilation, but not too much. Due to the lack of ventilation, super-heated gasses were trapped inside of the structure, and it essentially formed a "rocket stove" (look them up; ordinary wood fires can get hot enough to melt metals and rapidly cook foods.. pretty cool). Steel beams don't necessarily need to melt to become compromised. A steel support beam can expand a lot from a simple house fire (steel expands/contracts just from changing seasons).

In all reality, nothing can be 100% guaranteed because it's only happened that one time (multiple buildings, but all at one time). We have nothing else to compare it to.
Reply
0
User avatar #5 to #1 - nywrestler (01/02/2016) [-]
I assume you meant to type "plane" and are referencing 9/11.

The impact of the planes blew all the fireproofing off of the steel columns thereby allowing the structural steel beams to heat to the point that they failed.
Reply
+2
#51 to #1 - swagbot (01/02/2016) [-]
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
No, see, you're coming at this all wrong.


Because you see, the official story of 9/11 is actually ******** .
Reply
-1
#95 to #51 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Prepare for the downthumb of the century.They wont admit it even if their Goverment came forward and said it in their face.
Reply
+2
User avatar #25 to #1 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
A large plane could bring down a skyscraper on it's own. What would need to happen is that the plane hits key supportive beams. Depending on from what angle and where the hit was, as well as force, of course, the above parts of the building would either fall towards where the plane hit, or the top part of the building would rotate around a point before falling down. Imagine sweeping a person's feet. Damage to the below areas of the building may vary, but should largely survive with some damage.


This is of course just what would happen if a plane crash alone tore down a skyscraper. There's no guarantee it would.
Reply
-3
User avatar #49 to #25 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
The constuctor that made wtc tho claimed that the building could take multiple plane hits without collapsing
Reply
+9
#53 to #49 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Like the people back in the early 1900s said the Titanic couldn't sink.
Just sayin.
Reply
+4
User avatar #52 to #49 - mudkipfucker (01/02/2016) [-]
the people who made the titanic claimed it was unsinkable
Icebergs cant melt steel ships
Reply
-1
User avatar #55 to #52 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
We dont live in 1912 though.
Reply
+5
User avatar #61 to #55 - mudkipfucker (01/02/2016) [-]
then why does it feel like we're 2 years off a world war?
Reply
-1
User avatar #62 to #61 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
Its second a cold war.
Reply
+2
#57 to #55 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Thanks, John Oliver. I'm glad it's the current year, so we don't need to worry about creators exaggerating the capabilities of something they made.
Reply
-2
User avatar #58 to #57 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
**** off anon
Reply
0
User avatar #60 to #58 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
Not an anon. I opened a new tab in private browsing and it signed me out.
Reply
-2
User avatar #63 to #60 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
Thats why you keep downvoting as an anon?
Be my guest
Reply
0
User avatar #65 to #63 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
I'm not. Maybe someone thinks your as much of a faggot as I do, but red thumbs instead of arguing. I avoid red thumbing people I argue with on principle.
Reply
-3
User avatar #66 to #65 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I am a faggot because you dont like what you read?
Go be salty somewhere else man,also keep being an anon bitch,it suits you
Reply
+1
User avatar #67 to #66 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
No, you're a faggot because you think someone wouldn't hype something they made just because the sun's revolved around the earth a certain number of times. Human behavior hasn't changed in that respect over the last 100,000 years, so why would it happen in the last 100.
Also, because you're Greek. Go back to ******* teenage boys.
Reply
-2
User avatar #70 to #67 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I guess your wife came over and got ****** like she wanted to so now you are salty as **** ?
Should be expected by a ******* like you. Also change your color you ******* twat,just because you are going blind from all the fapping that doesnt mean we should also.

And how the **** you know where i am from?
How more butthurt can you get to stalk me?
Reply
-1
User avatar #73 to #70 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
Hahahaha. You're so butthurt. I know you're Greek because you were nonstop bitching about criticism of Greeks during your financial crisis. You're so mad.
Reply
-1
User avatar #74 to #73 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I dont even know who the **** you are man,thats how much memorable you are. And you are here now bitching about WTC,hypocrite much?

I dont have any reasons to be mad,whats done is done...you on the other hand...
Reply
0
User avatar #75 to #74 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
I'm not bitching about anything. You have no reason to be mad? What about your last post? I was an anon at the time, actually. I only remember you because of what a butthurt salty little Greekfag you were. I'm surprised you could afford the salt, tbh.
Reply
-2
User avatar #78 to #75 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
>Implying you got more money than me,nice one fam

The dead sea has less salt than you right now
Reply
0
User avatar #98 to #78 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
Kek, having more money than Greeks would make me an Ethiopian. Considering the US GDP per capita is over 2.7 times that of Greece, and I'm pretty well off even for an American, I'd say it's a safe assumption.
Reply
-3
User avatar #100 to #98 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
You have probably never heard of Buying power of a nation.
We dont pay 2000 dollars on rent over here you ******** .
Go get tipped now while buying dildos from wallmart after you got stuffed on 1$ burgers
Also... Building 7

You get payed 100 Dollars minimum wage per day over there (if not more) and still cry that you dont have enough money.

Go play it rich somewhere else *******
Reply
0
User avatar #103 to #100 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
I'm not crying about not having enough money. I'm happy as hell. Where did I complain about money? Also, I'm 5'11'' and weigh 165 pounds. I'm not even close to fat.
-1
User avatar #107 to #103 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I...dont...care.
Even if you made more money what is there to brag about?
We both live in our countries during a ****** economy while richfags are getting richer.
Thats life and you better learn to live it like it is.

One last thing.I want you to tell me whats the official story about building 7,i want to hear it from you.
Reply
-1
User avatar #105 to #100 - peanutsaurusrex (01/02/2016) [-]
aw man, a bigger dick contest, I love these
-1
User avatar #108 to #105 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
A celebrity downthumbed me.
What a ******* honor.
Are you butthurt as well man?
Reply
-2
User avatar #68 to #67 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
If the constuctor claims the building should keep standing he is a liar and i am a faggot. If Bush says it was ze evil terrorists you are correct and a genius...

Ok man,sure
Reply
-1
User avatar #69 to #68 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
What constructor was this? I can't find anything about it anyway. Was he the chief architect or a construction worker?
Reply
-1
User avatar #87 to #69 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
This wasnt exactly it,since i remember the interview was around 10 minutes,but its the closest i can find right now
9/11 Truth: World Trade Center built to absorb Multiple Jetliner Impacts
Reply
0
User avatar #112 to #87 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
This guy was not an engineer, nor was he involved in the design or construction of the buildings. He was an onsite construction manager, and his opinion is not infallible. Additionally, he only said that impact wouldn't knock the towers down, and it didn't. Fires weakened the steel frame after the jets damaged much of it and blew of fireproofing, causing the tower to collapse. Additionally, he said it was built to withstand one impact from a 707. The towers were hit by two much larger planes. This proves exactly nothing.
Reply
-1
User avatar #116 to #112 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
He also said MULTIPLE impacts
Reply
-1
User avatar #119 to #116 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
He said "AN impact from a fully loaded 707." He believes it could withstand several, and he's still not an expert, nor was he wrong. Impact didn't destroy them.
Reply
-1
#122 to #119 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
GIF
Yeah,"fire" did
Reply
-1
#115 to #112 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
Ok ok you are correct and all knowing,sorry that i wont spend my free time to search all over the web for the "Official" story after 5-8 years and i prefer to rest for now.
All i ask of you is to tell me the "Official" story of Building 7,my mind keeps forgetting,dont skip any details,i wanna hear ALL about it.
Reply
-1
User avatar #118 to #115 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
I don't know "all about it." I also don't want to spend all my time doing it, but I know that they said rubble from the WTC caused it to collapse. Why does everyone mention WTC 7, when WTC 3,4,5, and 6 were all destroyed by rubble?
Reply
-1
#121 to #118 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
Oh god this never gets old
Reply
-1
User avatar #125 to #121 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
Rubble caused the collapse or partial collapse of 15 buildings. Why is it only WTC 7 that people fixate on?
-1
#126 to #125 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
No reason mate,its not like building 7 had any serious documents in it,or how some Trillion Dollars disappeared overnight.

No reason at all.
Reply
-1
User avatar #72 to #69 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I found it some yeras ago from interviews they took. I will try to find it later and post it to you since i am at work and linking and typing from android is frustrating
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #49 - greyhoundfd (01/02/2016) [-]
The tests for plane hits were actually designed around small planes, not commercial jet liners.

Yeah, the towers could take a tiny Cessna or two and live. Not two Boeing jets.
Reply
-1
User avatar #79 to #77 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
I remember from the interview they took that he specified that it could take multiple hits from Boeing 747,i will check it out later to confirm,there has been some years since then
Reply
+2
User avatar #80 to #79 - greyhoundfd (01/02/2016) [-]
I'm fairly certain that they actually never did tests on the building for larger planes.
Reply
-2
User avatar #81 to #80 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
And i am fairly certain that thats what he claimed
Reply
+1
User avatar #85 to #79 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
No. It was tested for a single strike from a 707, which is a much smaller plane
Reply
-2
User avatar #86 to #85 - indalx (01/02/2016) [-]
Multiple*
9/11 Truth: World Trade Center built to absorb Multiple Jetliner Impacts
Reply
+1
User avatar #97 to #86 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
TESTED for one. He thinks it could take more but has no testing to back it.
Reply
-3
#89 to #25 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Then why did the buildings crumble like controlled demolitions ?????
Reply
-4
#91 to #25 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
THAT'S THE PANCAKE THEORY AND IT IS WRONG

USE YOUR EYES, THE BUILDING STARTED TO PULVERIZE, NOT TOPPLE,

HOW DID THE TOP TEN OR TWENTY STORIES GET SO HEAVY THEY TURNED THE BOTTOM 80 INTO DUST AND RUBBLE

YOUR THEORY IS **** BRO... GO AWAY
Reply
-4
#54 to #25 - kanedam ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
wasnt it declared the structure of the tower was so that a plane hit wouldnt make it go down?
i think the empire state building had a similar structure and also survived a plane crash easily... just asking
Reply
0
User avatar #134 to #54 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
I am here talking about the physics of what a plane crash could accomplish alone. Other factors that are often relevant in bringing down a building could be explosives, or similar, on the plane, or in the buildings themselves. I'm also not saying this is what did, or did not, happen on 9/11. If we try to stay factual. t's much easier to discus and find truths.



Whether it was terrorists attacking, or rich people getting richer, that discussion is up to other people. I find neither side satisfactory.
Reply
0
#135 to #134 - kanedam ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
i have zero clue about it.
and no matter what i hear... i'm no expert so i dont really dare to act as if i knew
Reply
+2
#56 to #1 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
A plane hit it, and jet fuel started the fires. Curtains caught fire in this building. The two aren't the least bit related.
Reply
-1
User avatar #59 to #56 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
**** , both this and comment >>#57 were me.
Reply
+4
User avatar #76 to #1 - greyhoundfd (01/02/2016) [-]
It had nothing to do with the impact. The difference is what the buildings were used for. The building in this picture is a hotel. There's not a lot that can burn, and it has water running through it that keeps the fire from getting too hot.

The Twin Towers on the other hand were office and administrative buildings. They were full of rugs, office supplies, and among other things: paper, which burns ******* hot, hot enough to get through fire retardant and weaken the steel in the building, causing it to collapse.
Reply
-9
#88 to #76 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE RETARDED AND WRONG BRO
Reply
0
User avatar #129 to #88 - greyhoundfd (01/02/2016) [-]
I wouldn't know.
Reply
-5
#101 to #88 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Look at all the brainwashed white trash thumbing this down like they can make reality go away
Also nice shilling ******** ....

You're getting ****** and you are too stupid to know
Reply
0
User avatar #111 to #101 - kibbleking (01/02/2016) [-]
It doesn't say the WTC had concrete in it tho
Reply
+13
User avatar #10 to #1 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Differences
>The impact caused massive structural damage to the building
>The impact stripped off a lot of the fire retardant
>The world trade center used an unusual design in which the outer walls supported the weight and the floors were essentially suspended from the outer walls
>This building was full of people's couches and carpets, not jet fuel
>The opening created by the planes hitting allowed wind to rush into a large area of the building, fueling the flames essentially like a blast furnace
>9/11 damaged two huge buildings as well as setting a number of large office buildings in the area ablaze (caused by falling debris), which quickly overwhelmed the fire department. The insulation in the towers was only designed to maintain the buildings' integrity long enough for the fire department to begin to control and eventually put out the fire. Instead, the overwhelmed fire department never got to actually even begin to slow the fire none the less put it out. In dubai, the fire department only had one otherwise undamaged building to deal with and were able to keep the fire relatively under control and eventually put it out.
tl;dr jet fuel can melt steel beams but your burning couch can't
Reply
+5
#12 to #10 - Zaxplab (01/02/2016) [-]
Thanks. I'm not actually one of those conspiracy guys, but I like playing Devil's Advocate to get the best answer.
Reply
+1
User avatar #13 to #12 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Asking questions is always a good thing. The difference between the smart and the stupid is the ability to recognize the truth when it's presented.
Reply
0
User avatar #33 to #12 - vigilum (01/02/2016) [-]
Playing devil's advocate is the best
Reply
-2
#20 to #10 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Fire fighters and police reported hearing explosions right before each of the towers started coming down including the 3rd tower WTC 7.
The building couldn't have imploded in on itself and if it was going to fall it would've only had the top section fall off in pieces.
The weight from the top coming down is not condensed enough to compromise the whole structure to fall like it did.
There was no jet fuel in WTC 7 when it burned down.
The billions of dollars in gold and silver kept in the basement levels were mostly "unrecoverable" according to federal investigation and only about $300,000,000 of that was officially recovered.
The FBI was ordered to stand down and let the known terrorists onto the planes.
2 Israeli men were caught on the George Washington Bridge with explosives, and then never talked about again.

So much fishy **** went on that day that it can't be covered by comment rambling.
Just go read the other side for yourself. READ ***** READ!
Reply
+1
User avatar #50 to #20 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
The "explosions" were the floors (which were essentially suspended from the load bearing walls) beginning to collapse on top of one another. One floor fell onto another weakened floor and then the two floors collapsed onto a third and then so on. That's why they heard what sounded like an explosion before the buildings collapsed. The buildings had actually started to collapse from the inside before you saw evidence on the outside.

The upper floors absolutely could have imploded the lower floors. Once the collapsing internal floors compromised the structural integrity of the outer supports, the upper 15+ floors OF SKYSCRAPER essentially went into freefall. No building is designed to not crumble under those forces.

The weight is absolutely enough. The world trade center had virtually no internal supports and relied almost entirely on load bearing external walls. This made it extremely susceptible to this kind of collapse.

WTC 7 burned down because it was an unchecked fire. It collapsed HOURS after the towers because there was no added accelerant or structural damage. The fire department simply never responded to the fire because the building was fully evacuated and they had better things to do. Any high rise can collapse if a fire goes unchecked. Their fire suppression is only designed to give the fire department time to control the fire.

There were not billions of dollars of precious metals. There was slightly under a billions (maybe as low as 650 millions) of which 200 million+ was reported recovered. Keep in mind that gold has a very low melting point and could have easily melted in with the other debris making it nearly unrecoverable.

The FBI does not control who boards planes.

A van with explosives was stopped. It isn't talked about because they didn't blow anything up. Not very interesting. Also be aware that not all Israelis are Jewish. A large section of the country is muslim.
Reply
-2
#99 to #50 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
You keep repeating lies
Heres this
Reply
-1
User avatar #130 to #99 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
This is a much smaller building (34 stories) which means it had to support significantly less weight

The fire was in fact controlled and eventually put out (only 6 hours after it started).

The building you're showing also used significantly less steel for support. It was also MASSIVELY overbuilt because it was designed to withstand large earthquakes.

It was also not occupied at the time of the fire. It was still under construction meaning there was far less flammable material within the building.

You are comparing a small unocupied building built mainly with concrete that is specifically designed to withstand earthquakes to the world trade centers after being hit by aircraft. This is not a reasonable comparison.
Reply
0
User avatar #22 to #20 - dierdred (01/02/2016) [-]
Never thought there was someone so stupid as you.
Reply
-1
User avatar #27 to #22 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
As long as you don't try to argue anything. Nice going.



Literally 99% of people on either side has no ******* clue what they're doing.
Reply
+2
User avatar #29 to #27 - dierdred (01/02/2016) [-]
im calling him stupid for the sheer fact that this thing is still around, hes just another conspiracy theorist who is losing control of his life and looking for something to blame it on, namely the U.S government.

Main reason people who believe in conspiracies are people whose lives are falling apart and they dont want to fix the source of the problem, instead they blame it on the government and vehemently believe conspiracies as if they were the new age bible, they try to find any reason at all to make it seem like some plot against the common man, or just some plot in the first place.

Why people have it in their head that the government has to be 100% transparent with every little detail are either very dim witted, want the us/world to fall into chaos or want to find more reasons to blame the government for not handing them a $250,000 check to make their life not a **** hole that they them self forged it into by making stupid decisions.

Some people on the defense have it right, bringing up factual information as to how the tower came down, what caused it to go down, have a solid grasp on the physics behind it. If the evidence can be backed up by fact (such as the load bearing capabilities of steel as it reaches the temperatures that jet fuel melts at, how fire spreads, Structural integrity loss on impact, collateral damage, and the lives lost.

Id rather side with factual evidence over hair brained **** scams that make people feel better because they think they've got the government figured out.

Red thumb me all you want people, but honestly, if you think observation and speculation beats facts, you're an absolute tard.
Reply
0
User avatar #35 to #29 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
I didn't see any factual evidence, or other evidence. All I see are several sides that uses faulty logic, brings no sources, and resort to name calling. Some here has brought more to the table, of course, and I don't expect people to use hours of their lives on something they care little about, but let's keep it to a slightly higher standard.



If I were to bring in my own personal observations, I notice that people would likely lump me with the conspiracy nuts, as I'm mostly replying to people on the other side. I think what you say about the conspiracy people is wrong. I find that the conspiracists are 90% people who ask questions, and the other side is 95% that don't. The other 5% of the norm asked questions and found that it was ******** . Numbers are rough estimates. Of course, in any discussion, it would be the conspiracists that asks the most questions, often really dumb ones, but we should rather humour them then ridicule, and look at things from every perspective. The vast majority that simply ignores is worrying. If you don't care, that's fine, but don't enter any arguments with that. Keep yourself to a higher standard.
Reply
+1
User avatar #36 to #35 - dierdred (01/02/2016) [-]
I call people names because theyre asking questions when they shouldnt, more often then not, every conspiracy theorist ive met, not someone debating, but people doing the digging and saying bush did 9/11 are people whose lives are in dissarray, Sure I humor them in real life where my opinion has consequences, im a keyboard warrior online, and call people out on their ******** . Both sides are full of jackasses who are wastes of space.

One side is too trusting of the government, while the other wouldnt trust the power button on their remote to actually turn on the tv, instead turn on 32 million cameras watching them from every conceivable angle (over exaggeration, I know) and I cant humor them, I just honestly cant. When someone is so considerably stupid that they think soccer is made by Satan because it starts with S, it makes me think they lack the capability to be anything but an idiot.
And I call them as such.

While those who blindly trust our government do need to think a little, not everything the government does for the good of the united states, instead its for their own wallets. Now, not every person in the government is like that, there are some trying to fix America, its just got a long way to go.

My official stance is to sit in the chair watching all of this and laugh, throw peanuts (and then grenades) and call names, because I honestly think both sides need to shut up, grow up, get a conscious and handle their own life.
Reply
-1
#37 to #36 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
You just sound like a giant ******* douche.
Sitting here with your hypothetical conspiracy theorist made up on your "Real Life" encounters.
You're the biggest idiot in the room buddy thinking you got it figured out and everyone who thinks differently about this is a worthless slob with nothing going for them.
Keep acting like people who talk about this **** are crazy because the people on the TV told you so.
They don't have FEMA camps, body bins, and train cars with restraints for people.
It's all just make believe to **** with us because life is just a big joke and nothing serious is goin on.
Go ******* kill yourself you worm, I guarantee without this pretty little fragile society that you'd be sucking dick for lunch.
Reply
0
User avatar #43 to #37 - dierdred (01/02/2016) [-]
You made me chuckle mr anon, too scared to type it with an account.
Seems I struck a nerve with you bud, Did I hit close to home with you being an idiot? Or was it the fact that your life is in shambles because either you, or your parents poor decisions with money.

I know about fema camps, Ive seen more blood and gore than you have, I can guarantee that, and you really honestly believe that we have had an epidemic so bad that we have had FEMA camps lately? And transporting prisoners by train isnt a crime. Body bins are unsanitary and frowned upon.

And I dont have everything figured out little one, I have enough knowledge and common sense to know that a majority of conspiracy theorists are literal ******* retards.

You sound like youve got another problem bud, you cant take your own life seriously? That's dissapointing bud, Because life can be great, it can be amazing and it can be crap, your choices lead you to where your life ends up, and if you think its a joke, then you must have made some really **** decisions. So I cant really take you seriously, also, I dont like watching the news, its too biased and doesnt show the full picture of whats going on.
Reply
-1
#104 to #43 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
**** off rabbi
Reply
0
User avatar #124 to #104 - dierdred (01/02/2016) [-]
in gods name, amen.
Reply
-1
#102 to #35 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
JEWS WANT THE TRUTH TO GO AWAY

SO THEY CRY CONSPIRACY

Reply
-1
#45 to #10 - rickardur ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
story is great, doesn't explain the third building from falling.
Reply
+1
User avatar #48 to #45 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
The third building was hit by flaming debris. It was completely evacuated so the fire department let it burn and instead focused on rescue efforts in other areas where there may have been survivors not to mention the hundreds of people injured. The unchecked fire compromised the structural integrity of the building and it collapsed. Most large buildings will collapse if you let a fire burn continually within them. Their fire suppression systems are only enough to give the fire department time to respond. It should also be noted that the building was partly cantilevered over an electrical substation which made it structurally weaker to begin with.
Reply
0
User avatar #132 to #48 - nywrestler (01/02/2016) [-]
Keep in mind the fire suppression systems were not working in building seven after the collapse of 1 and 2 severed the water mains. So it was burning completely unimpeded as well.
Reply
0
User avatar #131 to #45 - nywrestler (01/02/2016) [-]
Here is a report from the most appropriate architectural and engineering group (the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) and their explanation. Read it if you're interested:

www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
Reply
-2
#93 to #10 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
How does it feel to be wrong, retarded or a shill

**** you're probably all of the above
Reply
-2
User avatar #26 to #10 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
This is not actually true. Not the way you're telling it, anyways. "...like a blast furnace" is exactly why it's not possible in any way for jet fuel to melt steel beams, if you wanna follow the meme. However it can do a lot of damage to stuff and in combination with other factors it might bring down a skyscraper. The notion that jet fuel could bring towers like those down alone is absurd. I don't care whatever you believe. People aren't interested in educating themselves either way. My problem is the heavy focus on jet fuel. Jet fuel may very well melt steel beams when combined with x and y, but saying that yet fuel can melt steel beams is a stretch at best, and very insignificant. Don't do bad science.
Reply
+1
User avatar #47 to #26 - ImmortalBaconEater ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
While it can't melt them, it can heat them to the point that they can no longer cary weight. You do not need to come close to melting steel to compromise it's structural integrity. Jet fuel is plenty hot on it's own to do this.
Reply
-1
User avatar #133 to #47 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
Which does not mean jet fuel can melt steel beams. People here are spewing false information, misleading a lot of people.
Reply
0
#96 to #26 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
The ******* Jet fuel cooked off when the drone planes hit the buildings initially.... And here you are talking about 'science'. **** off
Reply
+5
#7 to #1 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Well, considering the only thing burning in that building is just walls and maybe some propane or some other common gas it wouldn't burn nearly as hot as jet fuel. Also, in 9/11, the planes probably took out a few beams when they hit the building.
Reply
+11
User avatar #9 to #7 - triggerhappywolf (01/02/2016) [-]
The exterior was the main support for the towers the large white beams running top to bottom. The building was designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 at cruising speed. 2 747 (larger planes) hit the towers near top speed. The building did do what it was supposed to do. It did give everyone below the impact time to escape and they nearly stayed standing. You have to think about how hard something the size of a plane hits at high speed then light it all on fire.
Reply
+1
#16 to #9 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
The towers where hit by 767's mate, if it where a 747 they would of come crashing down seconds later. Not trying to be Mr. Redthumb, just re-educating you so next time some person isn't more of an asshole than I was.
Reply
-2
#106 to #9 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Steel and concrete CORE you stupid **********
Reply
-2
#17 to #7 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Jet fuel is basically jacked up kerosene.
People can't grasp that the **** burns off quicker than it would take to actually melt enough **** to collapse.
The untouched beams that have been holding the whole weight of the building above them could not have been affected by any shift of weight from the top onto itself.
Reply
+1
#31 to #17 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
You seem to be forgetting an important detail. Steel is a good CONDUCTER. If you heat the beams at the top, the heat will spread to the bottem rather quickly and diminish the carrying capacity of the structural beams at the BOTTOM of the building, which is carrying the most weight, causing the building to collapse at the bottom and "implode"
Reply
-4
#38 to #31 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
You're a ******* retard.
Reply
+1
#40 to #38 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
No it's actually very simple. The impact damages the heat resistant coating, because steel is a good conductor the heat travels down, heating up the lower beams. When you heat up steel it rapidly loses its carrying capacity. It does not mean that anything is melting! Just by heating up steel it becomes weaker and more ductile, meaning it becomes more bendable. The lowest parts of the building have to carry most of the weight. The combination of having to carry the most weight and losing its strenght due to the increase in temperature (again not melting) makes it collapse at the bottem of the building.

I'm not saying that this is what happened, I'm saying that it is very much plausible that this is how it went. It is possible that due to impact the building collapsed at the bottom.
Reply
+15
User avatar #3 to #1 - obtuseabuse (01/01/2016) [-]
if you got kneecapped would you fall?
Reply
+27
#4 to #3 - icekingg (01/02/2016) [-]
It would be extremely painful.
Reply
+23
#6 to #4 - zamppaz ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
you're a big guy
Reply
+29
#8 to #6 - icekingg (01/02/2016) [-]
For you.
Reply
+2
#114 to #8 - kibbleking (01/02/2016) [-]
Alright, you got yourself kneecapped. Now what's the next step of your master plan?
Reply
0
#120 to #114 - icekingg (01/02/2016) [-]
Crashing this plane
Reply
0
User avatar #28 to #3 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Not straight down, that's for sure.
Reply
+2
#30 to #28 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Think of it like this, you got kneecapped, but you got knee capped so hard that your knees were literally blown the **** out and your shins were no longer connected to your body.

Youd go straight down.

Now imagine instead of that, think of your bones, the load bearing factor of your body, (without em, youd be like a rubbery flesh doll thing) You get hit so hard that your bones begin to lose the ability to support your weight, and chemicals in your body start to make them all loose and bendable like rubber without the spring back action.
All while youre standing still, arms at your side and unable to move, like a statue.

Where is gravity pulling you, where will you go when your bones cant support your weight any more and you have no momentum forewards or backwards?
Reply
-3
User avatar #32 to #30 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
I would still not fall straight down, if my kneecaps were blown the **** out.


Neither would I fall straight down if my bones became loose and like rubber. I would fall to any side. For me to fall directly down, I would need much more to happen, like all my inmates and bones disappear.



I don't care much for your silly 9/11 fights, but faulty science is faulty science.




There are some very specific, and virtually impossible cases where I could potentially fall straight down from losing my knee caps. However, let's not extort to faulty logic and bad science to project a wrong view.
Reply
-1
#110 to #28 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
The lying rabbi dogs on here will lie their asses off and try to stifle any rational examination...
Than you for being reasonable in the face of this pernicious Hebrew onslaught
Reply
-2
User avatar #14 - platinumaltaria (01/02/2016) [-]
I love that if this happened in america it would be "the world's greatest tragedy since 9/11" but it's like "lol do you smell burning kebabs"
Reply
0
#92 to #14 - Jeff C (01/02/2016) [-]
Lol what no. Buildings burn down all the time guy, idk where the hell you live that they don't. It'd be much more sad if people died, until then this is just unfortunate but it happens
Reply
-8
#18 to #14 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
kebabs already destroyed 2 of ours. they don't get to complain until 2 of theirs get demolished. Until then its just karmic justice
Reply
+10
User avatar #39 to #14 - alstorp (01/02/2016) [-]
Except no one died... That's kind of the point
Reply
-9
User avatar #41 to #39 - platinumaltaria (01/02/2016) [-]
That seems unlikely.
Reply
+7
User avatar #42 to #41 - alstorp (01/02/2016) [-]
Stranger things has happened


"There are no injuries, thank God ... of course, it will not affect the celebration," Maj. Gen. Rashed al-Matrushi, general director of the Dubai Civil Defence, told the live broadcast."
www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fire-breaks-out-dubai-skyscraper-near-burj-khalifa-n488586
Reply
+3
User avatar #46 to #41 - yudodat ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
The building didn't even burn inside. It was just the outside.

The building was made of concrete, with an outside layer of some flammable material. Only the outside burned I'm pretty sure. That's why no one gave a **** .
Reply
+11
#23 to #14 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Because nobody flew a plane into theirs
Reply
+8
#24 to #23 - flufflepuff (01/02/2016) [-]
and also nobody is reported dead

I see this guy in every comment section and I still don't know if he's a genuine moron or if he is just messing with people
Reply
0
User avatar #64 to #24 - sgtmajjohnson (01/02/2016) [-]
I think it's pretty genuine. He always starts off a thread with a comment that has like 300 thumbs, then loses them all by opening his mouth and expounding upon his less-than-well-developed opinions.
Reply
+3
#11 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT
Reply
+1
#113 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Reply
+1
#84 - matralith (01/02/2016) [-]
hfw
Reply
+1
User avatar #15 - forsakenxii (01/02/2016) [-]
i always accidentally call that thing the wiz khalifa
Reply
0
User avatar #127 to #15 - improbablyyourdad (01/02/2016) [-]
Cause you're underage and gay?
Reply
+1
#19 to #15 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
it isn't?
Reply
+1
#90 to #15 - Jeff C (01/02/2016) [-]
Yeah? That's odd. I could understand if maybe you called the Burj Khalifa the Wiz Khalifa, but you've got me stumped at calling a nondescript skyscraper in a city full of skyscrapers the Wiz Khalifa
Reply
0
#128 - mytwocents ONLINE (01/02/2016) [-]
Reply
0
#117 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Plenty of hypnotized whites and rabbi shills here trying DESPERATELY to get you to believe buildings... just crumble into dust...

"Jet furnace"
'Pancake effect'
Office supplies created an 'oven'

Never mind you can see the buildings crumble and not topple... All your theories don't fit what our eyes can see happening
A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
Reply
0
#94 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
Reply
0
#83 - orangebudd (01/02/2016) [-]
**orangebudd used "*roll picture*"**
**orangebudd rolled image** That joke just blew my mind, I'll rate 9/11!

Reply
0
User avatar #71 - uglychino (01/02/2016) [-]
911 was a lie. **** you Euro's who don't understand.
 
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)