Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1630 - vinnybonboot **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1675 to #1630 - deathstare (09/12/2012) [-]
Airplanes were not made of as heavy and strong material as the WTC. If a soft and hard object collide, the one taking the least damage would be the hard. The airplanes crashed into the WTC at a good height, so the most damage should have been a small dent, or if we exaggerated a nice clean hole. How would a dent or hole make the whole building fall?
#1640 to #1630 - vinnybonboot **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1638 to #1630 - lockstin (09/12/2012) [-]
it takes a lot more than planes to make 2 buildings built to be the strongest in the world to fall in less then 10 seconds and perfectly downwards.
User avatar #1626 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
The structure of the towers also had to do with the fact that they fell. The towers were designed to maximize the view out of the building, so the building was supported from the middle, and not evenly spread out. The planes took out that structure when they hit, even though the second plane left a stairwell on accident, and when the floors above the crash fell, it compacted each floor below, tumbling down one floor at a time at a high speed. My teacher last year taught me this, so as far as I know this is correct.
#1621 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
Ok. I see a lot of armchair experts who have been drinking the kool aid and spewing the official story nonsense.

Let me educate you fools and debunk your ridiculous conspiracy theories, also known as the government version of events, once and for all.

Fact: The 9/11 commission was created by the government after 9/11 to investigate the events that transpired. The 9/11 commission later threw out their own report (this report being the "official story" you lame ***** keep perpetuating) saying it was full of lies.

Fact: The jet fuel from the planes is basically kerosene. Kerosene is less combustible than the gasoline used in common automobiles, and does not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel in the towers.

I see people keep perpetuating the myth that even though the steel beams in the tower didn't melt, they were weakened by the fire which lead to the building collapsing. False. Even if the steel were weakened, it would not allow the towers to collapse at free fall speed. They fell in their own footprint as the result of a controlled demolition. If you've ever seen a controlled demolition, it looks exactly the same.

Fact: Building 7 was not hit by any planes and still collapsed. At no time in history has a steel building collapsed due to a simple fire. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building was quoted on camera about deciding to demolish the building.

Of course there are more facts out there, I could go on for days. It just makes me sick seeing all these idiots and their ludicrous conspiracy theories spoon fed to them by fox news or whatever ******** they've been watching.
#1665 to #1621 - newjacknick (09/12/2012) [-]
Anon, you're confusing combustion with how energetic a fire is. I'l give it to you, kerosene flashes at a lower temperature than gasoline does, but flash point is a misleading characteristic. Fuel oil/diesel fuel (same compound, different dye color for tax reasons) can put on a match if you drop one into a bucket of it. BUT, if you manage to get it to ignite, it burns like the fires of ******* hell. When I was in high school, a girl managed to run into the back of a fuel oil truck on I-95. The fuel oil ignited. A buddy of mine who was a first responder has a piece of steel that melted into a puddle and then re-solidifed on his desk. Jet fuel is basically diesel/kerosene/kiiesel. If a relatively small fire can melt steel guard rails (about 3000 gallons on a tri-ax fuel truck), what do you think 20,000 or so gallons that is aboard a 767 can do.
User avatar #1632 to #1621 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Building 7 was destroyed by a part of one of the towers falling onto it.
User avatar #1644 to #1632 - skateabuga ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
User avatar #1646 to #1644 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
What makes you say that?
User avatar #1679 to #1646 - skateabuga ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
I don't see any debris making it collapse

htt p://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
User avatar #1664 to #1646 - skateabuga ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
What proof do you have
User avatar #1678 to #1664 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Reports and other articles state that debris from the North Tower struck building 7 in one of the corners, southwest I think, and eventually the building collapsed due to the damage. What proof do you have to say my claim is false?
User avatar #1686 to #1681 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
All that does is support my claim.....the fire burned on for hours after the debris hit the building, but the eventual collapse of the building was officially accredited to the falling of debris from the North Tower.
User avatar #1693 to #1686 - skateabuga ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
So a building that's unstable in one corner for a few floors from fire causes it to completely collapse at free-fall speed.......right...
User avatar #1705 to #1693 - WinnerofTheGame ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Think of it like a domino effect.
#1629 to #1621 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
#1618 - thumbcommentthumb (09/12/2012) [-]
What was the fire and heat caused by again? A PAIR OF ******* PLANES!? No, I'm sure they were unrelated.
#1606 - admiralamory **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1611 to #1606 - ctrlrus (09/12/2012) [-]
Jet fuel reaches a maximum temperature of 1800°F (982°C). Whereas Steel starts melting at 2500°F (1370° C).
User avatar #1639 to #1611 - stanleys (09/12/2012) [-]
Whereas steel and anything else will bend and be crushed if it is in the way of a commercial jetliner going around 500mph, then causing the top of the tower to collapse onto the rest.
#1634 to #1611 - admiralamory **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1605 - brasilient (09/12/2012) [-]
And then you realize both towers were ******* hit by airliners flying at high speed
User avatar #1654 to #1605 - skateabuga ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
http://history You need to login to view this link 1940s/a/emp irecrash.htm

and then you realize that the empire state building had the same thing happen, had the fire burn for hours, and it was just fine
User avatar #1633 to #1605 - lockstin (09/12/2012) [-]
similar buildings have been struck by meteors and remains standing, some even made of dense wood. I would recommend to everyone here they watch the documentaries Loose Change 9/11 and then Farinheight 9/11. both excellent and entertaining documentaries about 9/11, and the stuff both covered and not covered by US news. so lots of stuff from BBC that the US wasn't allowing CNN or ABC to say.
User avatar #1619 to #1605 - ctrlrus (09/12/2012) [-]
The Twin Towers were built to withstand planes hitting them. That was part of the building process. And if you wanna add the fuel part, consider the following: Jet fuel reaches a maximum temperature of 1800°F (982°C). Whereas Steel starts melting at 2500°F (1370° C).
User avatar #1651 to #1619 - omfgitsstsix (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm with Brasilient.

Unless it's ******* NORAD, a plane hitting your building (especially one of that size) will **** **** up.

Once the top few floors collapsed from lack of support, they just crushed the floors below, gathering more and more momentum to break through the next floors.
User avatar #1601 - dtcrawl (09/12/2012) [-]
I don't trust the government, but I don't think it would kill thousands of American citizens to gain support for a war when they don't even need our support (obviously)
#1597 - CJT (09/12/2012) [-]
Did everyone forget about Popular Mechanics' work on debunking 9/11 conspiracies? Last time I watched their videos, they seemed to have done a pretty professional job of debunking each and every one.
#1593 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
the reason it was so hot was because of the jet fuel that was burning.
User avatar #1610 to #1593 - ctrlrus (09/12/2012) [-]
Jet fuel reaches a maximum temperature of 1800°F (982°C). Whereas Steel starts melting at 2500°F (1370° C).
#1590 - leshiggydonatello (09/12/2012) [-]
>being an edgy thirteen year old
pick two
#1586 - heyimathespian (09/12/2012) [-]
I think everyone needs to calm down on both sides. Honestly. Conspiracy theorists, you're whipping a storm that need not be; those chastising, you kind of sound like pompous narcissists. Nobody can say for absolute certain what happened. Yes, there plenty of inconsistencies surrounding their attacks, but there are also plenty of explanations that aren't conspiracies. At the same time, most of us weren't there, and if we were, were probably more worried about our lives and loved ones than say, the engineering of the buildings. So we can't be sure.

Regardless, it was a dreadful thing that happened to our nation. I don't think arguing over technicalities is just a little disrespectful.
#1595 to #1586 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
So you mean that theres a chance that 4000 people was murdered by elected officials and demanding a proper investigation that has a larget budget that comical 15 million dollars is very disrespectful.

well, i atleast respect your opinion.
#1608 to #1595 - heyimathespian (09/12/2012) [-]
I typoed, meant that arguing the points was disrespectful, but I think you gathered that.

I just figure at this point, a valid investigation would be hard, most evidence has been cleared. And we aren't arguing to the government. We're arguing in our cliques and peer groups, and with strangers over the internet, where most are probably steadfast in their opinion. It's a fruitless debate at this point.
#1625 to #1608 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
More than half america doesn't beleive the official story and you think "evidence has been cleared". There is already more than a hundred books about the case and a lot of academics who have critized and condemned this "evidence".

No, just no.
#1635 to #1625 - heyimathespian (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm saying, if we were to try and redo an investigation (since some people found the initial ones unfair) it would be impossible. I don't think it's necessary. I said it would be pointless to do it. I think you're misreading me.
User avatar #1652 to #1635 - lockstin (09/12/2012) [-]
many have done more thurough investigations, have you seen the documentary Loose Change 9/11? excellent one
#1680 to #1652 - heyimathespian (09/12/2012) [-]
No I haven't. But I don't think they skimped on the investigation. But I know people who do. My mother, for one. I still can't say for certain what happened. (I'm agnostic, making big judgements like this don't come easily to me as a rule) I just think on both sides people making petty arguments that really don't affect the outcome of the attacks is pointless. The government did it- then our government is (more) untrustworthy and that's scary. Terrorists did it- then terrorists did it which seems scary in the long run as well.

Regardless, we will have problems long term, and regardless all the people lost were lost. The least we can do is not argue with each other over it.
#1584 - seelcudoom has deleted their comment [-]
#1581 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
If the Windsor Tower had been hit by a 747 it probably would've been ****** too...
#1658 to #1581 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
IT WASNT A ******* 747 STOP SAYING THAT. IT HURTS MY EYES. VERY MUCH. it was a 757, and a 767.
#1661 to #1658 - milkinmapockets (09/12/2012) [-]
but yeah, i agree with you anyways.
#1566 - SILENCEnight (09/12/2012) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #890015 at FJ Pony Thread 14 ** well the buildings technically collapsed upon itself so... plus jet fuel is REALLY HOT... myth plausible
#1562 - jebusjabarty (09/12/2012) [-]
A giant plane full of fuel dripped down and incinerated the building. Once the top collapsed it was just a domino effect with each floor adding weight.
User avatar #1571 to #1562 - shamusogrady (09/12/2012) [-]
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)
#1576 to #1571 - jebusjabarty (09/12/2012) [-]
However, when tons of steel flying at a high rate of speed and explodes on impact, the top floors are weak, and missing massive amounts of support. Once one floor goes, it just hit down and down and down harder and with more force each floor. So no matter the fuel situation, a plane hitting something with that rate of speed is going to damage it beyond repair.
#1574 to #1571 - gjsmothefirst (09/12/2012) [-]
It can very easily get hotter than that.
User avatar #1577 to #1574 - shamusogrady (09/12/2012) [-]
okay, please explain your logic then.
#1594 to #1577 - gjsmothefirst (09/12/2012) [-]
... ok then.
Jet fuel *can* burn to hotter temperatures than that, under the right conditions - as can anything. So it *could* have gotten hot enough to melt through steel.

Do bear in mind you can light steel wool with a match. If steel catches on fire (I dunno, mebbe the jet fuel set it on fire), it burns at up to 1500C, hot enough to melt steel. Not to mention the fact that it's BURNING AWAY.
User avatar #1553 - chiefrunnyjeans (09/12/2012) [-]
Well, there is the argument that the core of the building was extremely strong and everything collapsed around it, which is correct. However, nothing explains WTC 7. THAT was ******** . Obviously brought down on purpose. It is impossible that it would have caught fire and collapsed. There were many buildings that were closer and nothing happened to them at all. The way WTC 7 was designed meant that fire would not be enough to cause any serious damage. Once again, it was obviously on purpose.
User avatar #1543 - onenightstand (09/12/2012) [-]
I'll make this sweet and short.
User avatar #1544 to #1543 - faxanadu (09/12/2012) [-]
#1575 to #1555 - titfiddler (09/12/2012) [-]
u just linked something that proved u wrong
User avatar #1589 to #1575 - onenightstand (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm not completely sure if you're just ******* with me, or....
No you're just ******* with me.
User avatar #1557 to #1555 - faxanadu (09/12/2012) [-]
wiktionary. org/wiki/plain
User avatar #1552 to #1544 - allion (09/12/2012) [-]
User avatar #1556 to #1552 - faxanadu (09/12/2012) [-]
wiktionary. org/wiki/plain
User avatar #1570 to #1556 - GimmieTheCockies (09/12/2012) [-]
no, just stop. you're embarrassing yourself even more
User avatar #1617 to #1607 - GimmieTheCockies (09/12/2012) [-]
Shhh, it's time to stop posting for today. You're making a fool of yourself.
#1620 to #1617 - titfiddler (09/12/2012) [-]
go kill yourself
User avatar #1561 to #1556 - allion (09/12/2012) [-]
#1540 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=ThLaswlmDSQ

Just watch this video and think independently. Use your own logic, it works great.
User avatar #1538 - bennyandwills (09/12/2012) [-]
Hey, Material Scientist here.

Just a quick explanation for anyone who is genuinely interested:
Why did the Towers fall? The plane itself didn't knock out enough support columns, and even jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel; what gives?
Well, turns out that at very high temperatures, steel loses a lot of its strength; think about when you hold a plastic rod over a fire. Even before it actually melts, it becomes bendy! Well that's what happened with the steel columns; they started bearing a greatly increased load, then enough were heated that failure occurred. At that point, the weight of the above floors transformed into kinetic energy from its previous potential state, and caused each subsequent floor to fail.
Source: Mechanical Engineering Degree, Material Science Minor, Experience in Industry.

Please ask if you have any questions!
User avatar #1708 to #1538 - hybridboxll (09/12/2012) [-]
Things that bend don't fall straight down.
User avatar #1732 to #1708 - bennyandwills (09/12/2012) [-]
Well actually, if you watch the video, it does start to fall on an angle, but the downward force was much higher than any lateral force. There was probably some force in that direction, but not enough to fall sideways.
Furthermore, most buildings are designed to fall straight down. That way even if there is a critical failure, the collateral damage will be minimized :)
#1657 to #1538 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
Plus matters aren't helped by a Boeing crashing into the building with a momentum reaching in the hundreds of billions of kg*m/s.
#1542 to #1538 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
How come building 7 is the only steel building in history to have collapsed only becuase of a fire ( fire tha't came "falling from the sky" and just managed to burn the inside but not the outside somehow), and countless of witnesses heard explosions from the very same building?
User avatar #1551 to #1542 - bennyandwills (09/12/2012) [-]
Well, as has been pointed out, jet fuel burns at a higher temperature than "regular" fire, so that had something to do with it. That coupled with the increased stress on the columns to begin with is enough to do it, easily.
#1588 to #1551 - thorsballs (09/12/2012) [-]
Yea, I guess the jet fuel wasn't ignited and managed to to make a 180 degree turn around the building, moving to the inside of building 7 to be ignited by well, to be ignited.

Or perhaps, it was a plan to gain motives to invade the part of the world which has the largest supplies of the most valuable resource, the same resource who spiked one day years later and caused an economic recession. Black gold.
User avatar #1600 to #1588 - bennyandwills (09/12/2012) [-]
Not getting into politics, though I agree the invasion of Iraq was certainly politically motivated, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

How did the fuel "make a 180 degree turn"? And it ignited (one can imagine) from the many sparks flying due to a collision between a plane and a building.
User avatar #1776 to #1600 - hybridboxll (09/12/2012) [-]
 Friends (0)