THANK YOU! someone gets it.

Look at the location of the monitors.

Now from a distance it looks like they are fine,however i bet upon closer inspection I can say they were destroyed.

The Pentagon was designed to take nukes and survive. A Boeing 757 weighs over 200 tons loaded up.

Air also isn't the best of conductors.

Also,the WTC was not designed as a hardend structure. It wasn't the fire that catastrophically destroyed them. It was the impact of 300 tons of planes flying into them.

Ones a monitor, ones a book, but I get your point.

Yeah yeah, people are saying the same thing about the WTC. Monitors and books aren't "designed to handle" fire. Just bringing up something that was weird looking, again, not a conspiracy nut.

so if it was a missile or a bomb than the book would not have fallen over?

And it's not really about them "falling over" it's more like, why aren't they burnt.

All I'm saying is if it could take down steel and a massive building, and the planes went right in, wouldn't the pentagon be more fucked up then it is.. I'm not saying the theories are right, or the gov is telling the truth, whatever happened happened, I'm not trying to defend the theories, it's simply something I found that stuck me.

as long as you are not a conspiracy nut i am happy.

I just question everything that strikes me as worth questioning, chasing knowledge shouldn't be a bad thing IMO. Like, if someone KNOWS how it could be possible that those items survived, I'd like to know, for just that reason, to know.

Its not I am the same way lol. Thats why I search for answers. Loot at my reply to OPs retardation: 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.

That's all so true too. Good post.

Its a fucking super fortress. theres a huge difference between the pentagon and a 100 story building

Dude fire is fire, I know the pentagon is a tank of a building, but still. I've HAD a house fire, and EVEN in the side of the house the fire DIDN'T reach, the closest room TO the fire, plastic was melted and the books to the closest wall where wilted. it's just interesting to see that in the pic, don't get all fucking "derp it's a fortress" I KNOW that.

oh my god so if the books didnt burn there must of been no fire! and that means there was no plane....... dude its totally a conspiracy

Yes, because that's exactly what I've said in my previous posts. "OMGOMGNOFIREZ THE GOV IS LIEING TO US!" You're a fucking idiot lol.

What the fuck do you think an unburnt book in a fire has to do with anything?

Dude, shut up, you're giving me a headache. It's unburned paper IN A FIRE, you just fucking said it. You're not worth any more responses.

your a fucking idiot

I dunno dude. I'm just saying, they said the jet fuel melted the steel of the WTC, why isn't all that shit burned? Or, if the fuel didn't make it "in" the building, and was say, spilled outside, why wasn't the grass or shit burned? They should take the time to answer that small shit, which will squash the conspiracy theories ya know?

Because fire is a fickle mistress.

Yeah, it's just crazy that things like that are so random.

explain this building falling you fucking retard

No plane landed on it, that is true. Fuckhuge chunks of collapsing tower, however, did. Dumbass.

You sir. Are a good man. Glad people on FJ still have brains.

I just wanted my staplet back.

way to fuck up the word "stapler"

Why don't you go fuck yourself? "t" and "r" are right next to each other.

You don't respect Office Space enough to check your spelling, get off the internet.

He is right you know!

explain this building falling into itself completely with no resistence

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.

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?

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.

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.

I do not support the war at all. I wrote an entire essay about it, Here: enjoy

Enjoy

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

read above replies

*Sigh* Here you go shithead.

http://www youtube com/watch?v=kSq663m0G8&list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B&index=9&feature=plppvideo

DISABLED COMMENTS WITH 2,400 DISLIKES ? LOL WATCH THIS www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg THIS IS UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE!

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 fuck yourself truther cock sucker.

You're trying to be serious about a conspiracy...on FunnyJunk? You have better chances of making a dent by doing to a preschool.

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 fuck down. Again, thank you.

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

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

Dear god another one. Heres my video responce: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g

I like how I learned this today at school just so I could actually facepalm at the shit that was posted up there.

Not meant for you btw, I meant about the post. asdgf

true that

Thank you person who isn't a conspiracy nutjob.

and they are different structures. the WTC buckled and melted

It couldn't have melted steel takes 2750F to melt steel plane fuel is only 1400F

were you told that or do you know for a fact?
lol i dont wanna start shit lets end this

It's a fact. But yeah no shit storms today i'm to lazy

AGREED
CHEERS

and that, ladies and gentlemen, was an irish shitstorm

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.

It was a fucking 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.

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?