Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1056 - mablemoox (09/11/2012) [-]
I'm prepared to get red thumbs but I just have to say that they removed the structure from the scene remarkably quick and didn't study it there. If that is the first modern structure to fall due to fire (even with an airplane flying into it), why wasn't it studied closer as to what the x factor was that made it pancake in less than two hours
User avatar #1052 - andalitemadness (09/11/2012) [-]
Okay, is this uploader a proxy fag or something? Seriously, why is this thumbed up?
#1054 to #1052 - anonymous Comment deleted by faxanadu [-]
#1048 - dibihoozer has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1040 - Jackimole (09/11/2012) [-]
"9/11 Truther convinced government destroyed the last 11 years of his life"
-Onion headline
User avatar #1039 - valyn (09/11/2012) [-]
jet fuel burns hotter than office supplies and such you paranoid *********
#1097 to #1039 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
explain this building falling you ******* retard
User avatar #1255 to #1097 - valyn (09/12/2012) [-]
No plane landed on it, that is true. ******** chunks of collapsing tower, however, did. Dumbass.
User avatar #1063 to #1039 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
You sir. Are a good man. Glad people on FJ still have brains.
#1044 to #1039 - drewbridge (09/11/2012) [-]
I just wanted my staplet back.
#1093 to #1044 - nelsonbeardly (09/11/2012) [-]
way to **** up the word "stapler"
#1103 to #1093 - drewbridge (09/11/2012) [-]
Why don't you go **** yourself? "t" and "r" are right next to each other.
#1115 to #1103 - nelsonbeardly (09/11/2012) [-]
You don't respect Office Space enough to check your spelling, get off the internet.
#1037 - anonymous (09/11/2012) [-]
The reason the twin towers fell was because either the plane or explosion incinerated the concrete covering the steel, which means that the steal had direct contact with the heal immediately, unlike the other building.
User avatar #1035 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I am studying to become a civil engineer so listen up you retard. The building in madrid did not have a plane crash into it, causing major damage even before the fire. When the plane crashed, jet fuel leaked down and started fires as well as the original fireball that shot through the building via the elevator shafts, causing major damage to the buildings supports. The jet fuel, fueled hotter fires than that of the Madrid building. The WTC had older fire fighting technology than the Madrid building. The WTC was also under more stress from the extra weight of other floors. The buildings used a tube support system which was only on the perimeter and core of the building, it had no extra support columns on the floors unlike the building in madrid which is why the madrid building survived. The WTC lacked modern insolation and it was being upgraded but at the time of the crash, only levels up to 18 had been fire-proofed. I also love how you leave out the fact that the building survived a major truck bomb (1,500 pounds of explosives) in the basement of it or the 1975 fire in the north tower that ravaged several floors of the building. Before you post retarded counter-arguments OP, know that you are getting yourself into.
#1224 to #1035 - wetpantslol (09/12/2012) [-]
He is right you know!
#1083 to #1035 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
explain this building falling into itself completely with no resistence
User avatar #1136 to #1083 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
It was damaged after debris from the collapsing towers struck it. This sparked fires which raged for several hours until the heat eventually got through the insolation and collapsed the structure. Why did this happen to begin with, the buildings fire sprinkler system was not automatic and rather a single point system with a lot of potential for breaks in the system caused by damage from the collapsing towers, which is what happened. The FDNY was actually making significant progress in putting the fires out until they heard creaking and saw cracks appear along the building, indicating a large potential for collapse. They stopped fire fighting and evacuating fearing an imminent collapse. The falling debris had damaged a section of the building. This caused an extra load to be put on the other supports. After being severly weakened by fire, it eventually collapsed.
User avatar #1152 to #1136 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Do you find this plausible?
User avatar #1163 to #1152 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I do not agree with this, it just needed enough bearings to collapse. Then eventually the extra load would be to much for the building to hold and in would collapse. This is what is known as a progressive collapse.
#1157 to #1152 - DagothUr (09/11/2012) [-]
You confuse me.

<--- You post this picture which is supposed to take attention away from 9/11.

But you concentrate your efforts on the issue of 9/11 in this comment section.
#1175 to #1157 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I do not support the war at all. I wrote an entire essay about it, Here: enjoy
User avatar #1166 to #1157 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
i believe the 2 milluion innocent iraqis that have died because of this war need to be remembered too, and why did they get murdered ? because of greed, the amrican government was CLEARLY involved
User avatar #1182 to #1166 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
read above replies
User avatar #1130 to #1083 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
*Sigh* Here you go ******** .

http://www youtube com/watch?v=kSq663m0G8&list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B&index=9&feature=plppvideo
User avatar #1141 to #1130 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #1151 to #1141 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
A bunch of dislikes by retards like you who didn't even watch it. Don't pretend you did because I just finished after I sent you that comment. Go **** yourself truther cock sucker.
#1148 to #1141 - zaw (09/11/2012) [-]
You're trying to be serious about a conspiracy...on FunnyJunk? You have better chances of making a dent by doing to a preschool.
User avatar #1072 to #1035 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
You're the man bro. You are the man. I have watched Why the Towers Fell and have watched videos of real qualified engineers showing how the truthers give only minute details and I love when people like you come in and shut them the **** down. Again, thank you.
User avatar #1099 to #1072 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I am honestly just a Junior in Public High School in Brooklyn, ny. lol. I am not an engineer. i plan on becoming a civil engineer though and studying at buffalo university. I am always fascinated with structural failures and naturally I have done a bit of research on the WTC as well as the Titanic, Galloping Gertie, The I-35 Bridge collapse, and the Hindenburg disaster
User avatar #1069 to #1035 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
you must have a true mental problem..Over 1700 architects & engineers are finally coming forward demanding a new investigation for 9/11 if you disagree watch this video I PROMISE you will find the truth out www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
User avatar #1074 to #1069 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
Dear god another one. Heres my video responce: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g
User avatar #1060 to #1035 - futachiblue (09/11/2012) [-]
I like how I learned this today at school just so I could actually facepalm at the **** that was posted up there.
User avatar #1061 to #1060 - futachiblue (09/11/2012) [-]
Not meant for you btw, I meant about the post. asdgf
User avatar #1045 to #1035 - SiegK (09/11/2012) [-]
true that
#1027 - anonymous (09/11/2012) [-]
also the windsor wasnt hit by a plane...
User avatar #1030 to #1027 - mrfourtysevenman (09/11/2012) [-]
and they are different structures. the WTC buckled and melted
User avatar #1041 to #1030 - crazecraka (09/11/2012) [-]
It couldn't have melted steel takes 2750F to melt steel plane fuel is only 1400F
User avatar #1043 to #1041 - mrfourtysevenman (09/11/2012) [-]
were you told that or do you know for a fact?
lol i dont wanna start **** lets end this
User avatar #1046 to #1043 - crazecraka (09/11/2012) [-]
It's a fact. But yeah no **** storms today i'm to lazy
User avatar #1050 to #1046 - mrfourtysevenman (09/11/2012) [-]
#1057 to #1050 - mrfourtysevenman (09/11/2012) [-]
and that, ladies and gentlemen, was an irish *********
User avatar #1026 - fartfacetheclown (09/11/2012) [-]
there was a bit of a steel frame left on the bottom of it.
#1023 - drewbridge (09/11/2012) [-]
Yeah, and the Windsor building withstood the freshly fueled fully loaded 747 impact, too.

User avatar #1032 to #1023 - pootisguy (09/11/2012) [-]
the aircraft crashed into the top 30 floors of both building, if this was to cause the building to collapse it would have done so immediately, or just the top 30 floors. yet after an hour of burning which did nothing harm the buildings structural integrity, the building randomly collapses.
User avatar #1712 to #1032 - drewbridge (09/12/2012) [-]
It was a ******* skyscraper.
200,000lbs of metal with 15,000 gallons of fuel flying at well over 400 mph.

I used to live outside a military base, over 7 miles away. They would fire artillery occasionally and it would make absolutely everything in my house shake. Sometimes planes would fly over, c-130's and such, and things would lightly vibrate.

I cannot fathom the immensity of an aircraft impact into something. If you watch the video, it fell in the direction most damaged.
User avatar #1080 to #1032 - clubsandwich (09/11/2012) [-]
The World Trade Center was hit by a plane, which shot a fireball throughout the building and through the elevator shaft. The plane's jet fuel then melted the frame of the building which then buckled and collapsed. The windsor tower also wasn't nearly as tall as the WTC. Also, the Windsor Tower suffered from a fire, not a Jet fueled (a thermite mixture) explosion and sustained flame afterwards. Do you really think the US government is stupid enough to leave loopholes in the plan?
#1031 to #1023 - anonymous (09/11/2012) [-]
WTC center was able to survive nuclear attack...
#1019 - newestuser (09/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #1024 to #1019 - soarinxdashie (09/11/2012) [-]
you, ******* ... there were 2 towers. 1 plane hit each tower, 1 hit the pentagon, and one hit a field in Pennsylvania
User avatar #1014 - hadrian (09/11/2012) [-]
OP, you're retarded. Even more because this isn't your creation.
User avatar #1012 - airline (09/11/2012) [-]
You are truly the worst kind of asshole.
#1011 - jtastic (09/11/2012) [-]
**jtastic rolled a random image posted in comment #112 at Fapping **
#1006 - sameeboy (09/11/2012) [-]
Just gonna sit here and wait for many massive flame wars
#1005 - ryanroyazzopardi (09/11/2012) [-]
**ryanroyazzopardi rolled a random image posted in comment #526659 at MLP Friendly Board ** It didn't have a ******* air liner full of jet fuel resting inside it now did it.
User avatar #1000 - TheAngryMuffin (09/11/2012) [-]
there was like 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in their though....
#994 - pitpug (09/11/2012) [-]
Dude, its been 11 years, your not going to convert any more people over to your stupid "inside job" crap. So please, shut up.
 Friends (0)