an inconvenient truth. . Fire and heat Fire and heat New ‘fork . , I Building new - ii: jlt . Madrid gir at HIGHS What do you think that fire and heat do with a



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#29 - TehBlackfire ONLINE (09/11/2012) [+] (64 replies)
I always though they fell because they got ******* hit by a damn airplane...
#38 - titfiddler (09/11/2012) [+] (74 replies)
anyone who analyses the facts will see that the governments "official" story doesn't add up. heres some facts:

-he south tower dropped in 10 seconds, which is fractionally below gravitational acceleration. This was confirmed in the 911 commission report, page 305.

-the dispersion of the huge dust clouds released by the towers as they collapsed is INCREDIBLY suspicious

-the manuevers flight 77 was reported to have pulled were physically impossible for a bunch of untrained hijackers to pull off

-theres no way in hell the fires could have gutted tower 7 in the manner NIST described. the collapse was much more consistent with a controlled demolition.

it takes a lot more faith to believe that that the government wasnt involved
User avatar #50 to #47 - kumabear (09/11/2012) [-]
they went to flight school in the US dude
#354 - therulethirtyfour (09/11/2012) [+] (17 replies)
You seem to be forgetting some things:

#1 A ******* PLANE HIT THE GODDAMNED BUILDING. This would weaken the internal structure of the building. Which means that the building is less secure, and a fire can wreak more havoc in it than a more secure structure.

#2. Jet fuel burns a hell of a lot hotter than your basic fire that you would find. Like, A LOT hotter. Combine this fact with the first one and you can see why a structurally weak building might have a snowballs chance in hell against a jet fuel fire as opposed to a fire spread by office furniture and drywall.

#3. Part of the Windsor Tower collapsed due to the fire.

#4. Taller buildings are fundamentally less stable than shorter buildings. They become more top-heavy and the higher you go the risk of having a frail infrastructure rises exponentially.

Next time you want to hit me with an "inconvenient truth," make sure the "truth" part doesn't get left out.
#121 - boomdady (09/11/2012) [-]
>Implying the trade centers caught on fire and weren't hit by multiple planes going hundreds of miles an hour, which then supplied fuel for the fire to burn even more intensely.
#1062 - MrFish (09/11/2012) [+] (1 reply)
you make a valid point
however you left out the part were THE ******* PLANE crashed into the WTC
User avatar #1035 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [+] (22 replies)
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.
#51 - SimianLich (09/11/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure a 747 Jet crashing into the side of the WTC might have made it structurally unstable. Jackass.
User avatar #248 - tehbomb (09/11/2012) [+] (1 reply)
The difference: a ******* PLANE smashed into one of them
#431 - sexypotato (09/11/2012) [+] (10 replies)
1. Jet fuel
2. A gigantic ******* plane hit the towers
3. Windsor building had a core of concrete
4. The WTC was 4x as tall
#1271 - jallan (09/12/2012) [+] (42 replies)
It must be nice to be this stupid. literally every day is a new adventure for you. You wake up and learn to use a microwave or some **** and you're so dumb you must like forget how to the next day. But that's okay, because it's like a whole new ******* adventure! Like ******* cars? How cool must ******* cars be? "Oh wow! What are those things that move around and make humming noises?" "Those are called "cars" and people drive around in them" "Wow thats so cool! Oh **** ! I'm so ******* dumb i don't even remember what those are. What are those crazy humming things going down the street?"
#301 - barehype (09/11/2012) [-]
Yes, however the Windsor Tower didn't have a ******* plane crash into it.
#533 - lolzponies (09/11/2012) [+] (33 replies)
A. A fully load Boeing 767 has over 10000+ gallons of JP7 jet fuel wich burns at well over 2000 degrees
B. A fully loaded 767 hit each of the towers

C. The reason the towers have the vertical lines is because they were designed to have maximum floor space which ment not having concrete polls every 20 feet , those lines are concrete supporting beams many of which were destroyed or became unsound during the attack due to the fire

D. The office supplies inside the towers also caught fire increasing the tempature to steels melting point and causing concrete to crack reducing the strength of the building

E. The windsor building didn't have a jet hit it

F. It has a diffrent design than the WTC

G. OP go **** your self with a cactus
User avatar #355 - whycanticaps (09/11/2012) [-]
cept, you know, A ******* PLANE NAILED THE TOWERS. wasn't just fire.
#1023 - drewbridge (09/11/2012) [+] (4 replies)
Yeah, and the Windsor building withstood the freshly fueled fully loaded 747 impact, too.

#769 - CuddlyBomber (09/11/2012) [+] (5 replies)
This is ******* stupid. Jet fuel burns much hotter than regular fire, the WTC had a little extra help falling down because of the ******* JETS THAT HIT THEM, and for ***** sake if you want your dumbass info graphic to be taken seriously i'd try using proper grammar.
#664 - BobbyMcFerrin (09/11/2012) [+] (5 replies)
People love to cite the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to "melt" steel. Steel does not need to be melted to be subjected to thermal strain. Thermal strain can usually be neglected in cases of static structures and frames. In the case of the WTC, bare steel was exposed, key support columns were completely destroyed on impact, and the rest finally gave way to a combination of thermal and creep strain. When the mass of the upper part of the towers gains momentum from accelerating due to gravity, it is more than sufficient to cause the rest of the floors to collapse.

Buildings are typically designed with a factor of safety (yield stress divided by normal worst case scenario stress) of about 2-4. If you take out one third of the columns on impact, and another third due to thermal and creep strains (each increasing with time as the fire burned) your stress levels are right about at yield, or critical stress with respect to buckling. In either case, the building is going down. In the case of buckling, which should be the case given that the columns were subjected to a constant axial force, the top part of the building would fall almost perfectly straight onto the floor behind it. Considering they are in the process of failing, the steel columns simply cannot induce a horizontal force large enough to cause significant horizontal displacement of the upper part of the building. Therefore, the likely scenario would be an almost perfectly vertical fall for the first few floors, and depending on where the bulk of the support in the building was, the vertical fall could quite conceivably fall perfectly vertically, once again noting that the first few floors would almost certainly fall completely vertically.

So those of you who believe that this was "impossible" without explosives, I implore you:

Ask a Mechanical Engineer/Mathematician anything.
#9 - NereidALbel (09/11/2012) [+] (8 replies)
Fire at the Windsor building: 800-1000 degrees Fahrenheit, fueled by paper and building material. Steel easily survives this. Only residential structures would collapse.

Fire at the WTC: 3000-4000 degrees Fahrenheit, fueled by jet fuel. This can nearly BOIL steel. No structure on Earth would remain standing.
User avatar #1207 - darthblam ONLINE (09/12/2012) [+] (2 replies)
Wait.. so.. having a PLANE collide and cause structural damage isn't a factor?
#192 - foxranger (09/11/2012) [+] (3 replies)
IT WAS HIT BY A ******* PLANE! A PLANE FILLED WITH JET FUEL! Its like ramming a goddamn missile into the building. Goddamn, **** your conspiracy ******** .
#107 - gayjunk (09/11/2012) [-]
well the windsor building didnt have a 						*******					 PLANE fly through it, did it
well the windsor building didnt have a ******* PLANE fly through it, did it
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)