Can two towers really have made these planes collapse?

I did the calculations myself. It works out, the energy dump was huge.

>blewd up
wew lad

I calculated your moms mass and it's bigger than a a neutron star.

>A fucking plane and a little fire took down the world trade center?

According to the NIST report, even all of that wouldn't have collapsed it if the impact and debris hadn't damaged the fire-resistant insulation on the beams; that made them much more susceptible to fire damage than they ever would have been under normal conditions. If the insulation had been intact, the building would have been severely damaged but would probably have held up.

This is probably the only board on Veeky Forums where this topic can be discussed without too many tinfoil hats so let's go for it

What I have trouble believing is that the jews would take down probably the most financially significant structure in the country for the purpose of justifying a war which would also cost more money. They probably could've achieved the exact same thing flying a plane into the statue of liberty, the Washington monument, the Lincoln memorial, or even the fucking whitehouse and saved hundreds of billions.

Insurance paid out, the owner made billions.

Jewy pls

No, not at all.

I watched it on live tv when it happened. The instant I saw them start falling my entire world view was completely shattered. I knew instantly they had be rigged to fall like that and the planes had nothing at all to do with it.

Since I was watching it live, I also got to see on the ground interviews with a couple of engineers who specialized in build demos. They said there was only one answer and that it had been planned and done with explosives on the inside of the building. They looked and sounded angry.

About 20-30 minutes later the same engineers where up on a stage with a podium and lots of government types around them. They took turns reading prepared statements retracting everything they'd said only moments before. They looked and sounded extremely sobered and were shaky; and had that 1000 yard stare thing going on.

Then the 3rd building went down, perfectly.

did that really compensate for all the businesses' intellectual property that was lost? You'd think the people behind this would've had their own stocks in the towers

STOP BRINGING UP INSURANCE AND OTHER ULTERIOR MOTIVES

EXPLAIN IT TO ME, SCIENTIFICALLY HOW IT COULD HAVE OR COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

I was like 6 at the time, have any of those reports survived?

Cool made-up story, bro.

?
who gives a shit about any of that?
They are not the ones who pay the bills for that
I think its obvious that the jews were involved in the attack

Conveniently, a lot of engineers spent an awful lot of time doing just that, in exhaustive detail.

nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

tl;dr jet melt can't steal fuel beams

plane hits tower really really fast
many columns are cut
big fire weakens the rest
tower now has no support
tower collapses

>a little plane
also you're overestimating tall skyscrapers
shake them around enough and they fall apart like the shitty sand castle you built as a kid
if you were a giant and tried to pick up a skyscraper it would crumble in your hand

welcome to america
where buildings are constructed by the lowest builder
using a shitty workforce
and the cheapest materials available

*lowest bidder
god damn this awful technology

Can confirm I'm 2500' tall and tried lifting a tower once

>pearl harbor all over again

>I knew instantly they had be rigged to fall like that and the planes had nothing at all to do with it.

OK, assuming the Republicans DID engineer the attack, why would they plant explosives, and THEN fly the planes into it?
Why would they do ANYTHING differently than a plausible terrorist attack?
I can understand you might think it was a false flag attack, but why would you think it was a faked false-flag attack?

If Gee-Dub really engineered the whole thing, why fake any of it?

oh give me a break, in how many countries can you at least count on construction inspectors to not just be bribed by the builders? (not very many)

>the republicans

and if you're asking why they used the planes instead of just detonating explosives on the inside, it's so they could fool the general populace. A sudden explosion is too suspicious, people associate it with secret agents and stuff instead of bloodthirsty towelheads

>get metal hot enough
Micronukes in the basement. They didn't melt, they were atomized.
Calling it ground zero was an esoteric thing but the hideous asbestos complex had to come down and quick, it was going vacant fast. Unpossible to do safely with conventional demolitions so a false flag and not the first in America, what else could the powers that be do?
In fact Controlled Demolition who cleaned up were asked to quote the job prior to 9 of 11 and were like, no fucking way, undoable.

Just remember this: WTC 7 fell without a plane even hitting it.

Do you think some faggot terrorists with butter knives as weapons hijacked a plane, and then crashed it, causing 2 towers to topple down like dominoes?

After all this the patriot act is born and so is the excuse to fuck the middle east up until its drier than sand.

Honestley I don't know what exactly happened but it sure isn't the story we are told because it makes no fucking sense what so ever

There was litterly molten steel at ground zero and the place was still hot for days after the attacks.

And do you know what they did with the scraps? They sold them to China ASAP instead of a through check.

Here's a (wew) for (You)

The cherry picking of that wave to make it look like something it isn't is literally the perfect metaphor for your entire dumb argument.

If you're mad, just vote Trump like everyone else.

>A sudden explosion is too suspicious,
And yet, hitting it with two airplanes also raised suspicions.
And if they really needed bombs to bring down the towers, then doing that would raise even more suspicions.
Nah, even if it was a false flag, the whole "demolition" story just doesn't wash.

The WTC didn't have asbestos, retard. The ad is simply saying large buildings take a long time to evacuate, thus you should have asbestos. God damn, you tinfoilers can't even read.

If people weren't so hysterical about asbestos fireproofing the WTC would still be standing.

fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

how did the beams become hot? i dont understand sorry for english i am espanol

an office fire that went out of control

could office fire real heat steel beam? i no think so, maybe it was in job?

The building didn't have a concrete core anyways lel
It was a steel lattice structure with the main supporting frame on the face of the building, which was badly damaged by the impact
Plus the weakening of the structure from the fire didn't help

People are fucking idiots
They didn't need to demolish the buildings manually for it to still be a cover up
The planes alone are enough to knock it down

Jet fuel melts steel beams

si but how did it melt so fast? plane only was in building for few second? sorry for english education really bad in mexico
i try to go to america legally but will wait for trump presidency

1.) You don't have to melt the steel, you just have to heat it till it buckles.
2.) The building was full of hydrocarbon plastics [computers, chairs, desks, tables, etc...] that acted as fuel.
3.) Since the building was sealed, it was a hotbox with an oxygen supply coming from only the holes left by the plane.

PLANE HIT TOWER
KABOOM MANY FIRES
MANY THINGS CATCHES FIRE
FIRE KEEPS BURNING
FIRE IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL
STEEL BEAMS LOSE STRENGTH AND BEND
COLUMNS SNAP BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH STRENGTH
TOWER COLLAPSES

>and it collapsed in like 10 seconds or something like that!
Not really.

>a fucking plane
a big plane flying overspeed with lots of fuel
>a little fire
you call that "a little fire"? it covered floors
>it collapsed in like 10 seconds
if you actually listen to the collapse you'll notice it lasts 15 seconds for the south tower, and almost 20 for the north tower
>there is no way something like this could be covered up
correct, we're not highly advanced creatures with unbreachable security, the truth would've come out by now

...

>no one notices OPs wordplay

Which is more likely:
>A terrorist cell setting up explosives in the WTC and just blowing it up.

Or US leaders:
>Setting up explosives
>Flying planes into the WTC, and one into Pennsylvania
>Fabricating evidence linking the attack to al'Qaeda
>Fabricating a lot of al'Qaeda itself
>Failing to fabricate evidence to link Saddam's Ba'ath party to the attack

Why wouldn't the US just blow up a building? If it's so obvious that it was a controlled demolition, why would they make it look suspicious by sending two planes into it?

Hell, if they can cover something like that up, why wouldn't they just nuke a small town and say it was a weapon sold to the terrorists by Saddam?

These conspiracy theories are so cartoonishly inane to me that I'm inclined to believe anyone who takes them seriously has an intellectual disability.

>so is the excuse to fuck the middle east up until its drier than sand.

Oh, you mean to tell me that they not only needed an excuse to go to the Middle East, but that it needed to be a risky controlled demolition leading to the destruction of two economically important buildings and 3000 deaths?

This is a central premise of a lot of these conspiracy theories: That the planes merely hitting the buildings wouldn't be enough to justify the events that followed. If it were, they would have left it at that, with no need for the control demolition.

Well, okay. But what about THE INVASION OF IRAQ THAT HAPPENED LESS THAN A FUCKING DECADE EARLIER THAT REQUIRED NO ATTACK ON US SOIL!?

All modern skyscrapers are prepared for controlled symmetrical deconstruction. They can be made to retreat almost into their own footprint to limit collateral damage. Thanks to modern metastable intermolecular composites the 'vaporization' of steel is a well established procedure. Pic: old school technique.

Since no one has explained you retards how this is possible in scientific terminology i shall expand my wast and brilliant mind to incorporate you dumb fucks into understanding how its possible for a plane to take down a building like this, using Scientific explanations.

High speed impact of Aluminium & Jet fuel

into a Steel frame (Iron+carbon)

an exothermic reduction-oxidation started around the inner support structure melting the steel structure at close to 2500 °C

this is why you could see the melted remains of t he buildings when they cleaned it up.

aluminium+Iron(III) oxide+jet fuel= Thermite

> (You)
>>the republicans
Are you implying it was the democrats?
Or perhaps there's some non-party-affiliated government officials we don't know about?
Remind me who leapt into action passing the patriot act and testifying before congress about going to war in Iraq?
It sure wasn't Al Gore.
Even if it wasn't a false flag, the Republicans in particular took advantage of the climate of fear and patriotism the attack produced.

In the following example, elemental aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, in this common example iron oxide, because aluminium forms stronger, more stable, bonds with oxygen than iron:

Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3
The products are aluminium oxide, elemental iron,
and a large amount of heat

Interested to see what some of you think about this, it was published in December of 2001 by the JOM: tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

I'm not an engineer but AKAIK, it all checks out based on what I know in regards to the statements of physical chemistry, load relief of the hot steel, etc.

The part I'm unsure about is the collapse of the building itself. The publication says that the top floors collapsed first, and the force caused a domino effect which collapsed the building directly downward due to the high inertia of such a tall and heavy structure. The problem I see with this is that the velocity of the collapse itself seems too high (maybe just to me?) considering each floor-collapsing event would require a great deal of energy to buckle the subsequent portions of steel that were not heated to the point of load relief -- and my intuitive understanding is that the falling mass would lose a great portion of its velocity. If you watch videos of the collapse, the buildings fall with near terminal velocity.

Not trying to continue shit-storming about conspiracy nonsense, but hoping someone can prove how or why it happened the way it did.

>if you actually listen to the collapse you'll notice it lasts 15 seconds for the south tower, and almost 20 for the north tower
The collapse itself came about a half hour after each plane hit.
And the planes were both fueled for flying non-stop to the west coast.

>But what about THE INVASION OF IRAQ THAT HAPPENED LESS THAN A FUCKING DECADE EARLIER
I with you user, but you're wrong on this particular point.
We counter-invaded Kuwait because Iraq invaded them first.

>the velocity of the collapse itself seems too high (maybe just to me?) considering each floor-collapsing event would require a great deal of energy to buckle the subsequent portions of steel that were not heated to the point of load relief -
The top 20-30 floors fell onto the floors below.
Once that happens once, each floor's beams aren't going to hold for a second or two, wobbling like something out of a road-runner cartoon.
Think about how much 20-30 floors of a skyscraper weighs, and the fact that they fell at least one floor's distance before impact.
What I saw on T.V. makes perfect sense to me.

Aren't all bankers Jewish? It would be a giant loss of assests.

The asset was worth more than the insurance cover, payout just meant the hit wasnt quite as bad as it could have been

>tl;dr jet melt can't steal fuel beams

I hate that meme with the passion of a thousand suns. If you can't melt steel with petroleum, you need to git gud because it is not that fucking difficult.

Again:
1.) You don't have to melt the steel, you just have to heat it till it buckles.
2.) The building was full of hydrocarbon plastics [computers, chairs, desks, tables, etc...] that acted as fuel.
3.) Since the building was sealed, it was a hotbox with an oxygen supply coming from only the holes left by the plane.

> just vote Trump like everyone else.

I already did.

Voting for anyone else is constitutional suicide.

yo tango el gato loco fuego en mis pantalones.

that's a fucking chimney
not a giant skyscraper

> why wouldn't they just nuke a small town and say it was a weapon sold to the terrorists by Saddam?

because nobody would believe that the terrorists would target a small town you daft cunt

That actually looks incredibly weak compared to modern skyscrapers.

One WTC has a 14,000+ psi concrete core, with walls a meter thick. Some of the taller buildings going up in Asia have super columns the size of truck cabs, surrounding the building perimeter.

The fact is, most skyscrapers pre-9/11 were just seriously under-built.

...

This. The collapse of WTC wasn't even mentioned in the main report, despite being the home to the 2nd largest cia office. Youd think thats worthy of mention. Look more into WTC 7 and youll find it held more than just offices.

The planes destroyed a lot of column supports.

The now excessive dead loads from the undamaged floors above can't be supported anymore.

The towers collapse downward from the impacted areas.

I also doubt that any published codes of practice from the time the towers were constructed factored in errant aircraft. Of course, I have no proof of that.

>I also doubt that any published codes of practice from the time the towers were constructed factored in errant aircraft. Of course, I have no proof of that.

WTC was designed to withstand impact from smaller aircraft at low speed with little fuel load, since there was precedent for that in the plane that hit the Empire State building. That plane was lost in fog looking for the airport.

Concrete and steel can crumble over time with a simple fire, doesn't even have to be jet fuel.

>connect the dots
>there's a conspiracy between the dots
>it's obvious /do your own research /think for yourself
There's a fallacy here, I'm sure.

>petroleum
>jet fuel

>little planes
Please die conspiracy fag

Only thing I don't understand is the Pentagon. The damage just doesn't seem to match with the impact of an airliner.

Any Veeky Forumsentific explanations?

>The collapse of WTC 7 wasn't even mentioned in the main report, despite being home to the second largest CIA office

Why would that have anything to do with it? The report was to explain why the towers fell on a structural level, not why anybody flew a plane into them. NIST does this kind of report every time a big American structure unexpectedly collapses, the same way the FAA exhaustively analyzes airline crashes. Unless there's some unusual thermal or mechanical properties of CIAnium that need to be factored in, that's not the sort of thing that would even warrant a footnote.

Also, yes, the collapse of WTC 7 was mentioned in the main report as something they needed to address. They just addressed WTC 1 & 2 first; it took them about three more years to get 7 pinned down to a confident answer.

The number one argument against 9/11 is that the government isn't that smart.

Seriously, anyone that thinks the government is part of an illumanati conspiracy has NEVER worked for the government or known anyone who has worked for the government.

jew neo-cons were looting money and destroyed the records with a false flag

Rly? Thank you for that insightfull explanation.

Dont you DARE to bring something like science into this! I'l let you know that i have done my research, and my degree in Social Studies and straight C's through HS makes me more than capable to see through the lies spewed forward by so-called "structual engineers" and other government-planted sheeple. I'm on to you, filthy Jew-Reptiles, hiding behind fronts like NASA and Montesanto.

It was a bomb, I think they didn't even find the plane remains

Well a conspiracy is done by a few not the big mass.
What I find weird is why some Saudi terrorists would choose the WTC. It seems to be such a weird target. Wouldn't you rather attack White House or the Pentagon or the Empire State building to spite America? What do some sandniggers know about the stock market, trading and world finances?

I also don't believe it was the entire government, but it's also stupid to assume that there were mo inside contacts or that it wasn't long planned from someone within the US.
How the fuck do you even plan an attack like that? How do they know where to fly? How do they even know how to fly?
There needs to be someone smart that pulls all the strings and I don't believe it was Osama bin Laden. He was just some dumb mercenary who was probably fucked over by string puller

>or the Pentagon
....................

>Can two towers really have made these planes collapse?

NO

but demolitions can
see;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
for decades old info.

and demolitions big enough to bring down WTC 1 & 2 vertically into their own footprint would leave a seismic record... and it did

>seismic readings after impact

>How the fuck do you even plan an attack like that? How do they know where to fly? How do they even know how to fly?

lol what? What about it do you think would be difficult to plan?

>ok guys, we get on these flights and hijack them at time X, then crash them into these landmarks

9/11 was not sophisticated, it was just unexpected

Hard to tell if this is b8....

Tachyon bombs, bro.

clearly the answer is no
i am a certified expert in planes crashing into buildings

>The damage just doesn't seem to match with the impact of an airliner.

>Based on my extensive dataset of airlines crashing into buildings

The 9/11 truth movement has been hijacked, the real conspiracy is how the government allowed the terrorists to hit 3 out of 4 targets, and the only missed target was because of civilian intervention.

No illuminati, no thermite, no holograms, just instead of stopping something that they had advanced knowledge of they decided to allow it to happen and utilize it as a catalyst for war in the middle east.

the only proof you need to show that it was an inside job/made by israelis is the anthrax letters

oddly enough no one talks about this

does Bruce Ivins look like a radical islamist to you ?

There is no such thing as "indestructible," no matter how marvelous the engineering is.

There is such a thing as a "graceful failure," though, and that was what the WTC was designed to do: collapse into its own footprint if it was ever destroyed, to minimize the damage to all the other structures nearby. At this, it succeeded beyond even the engineers' wildest expectations, with only WTC 7 taking enough damage from the initial collapse to fall down hours later, instead of every skyscraper on Manhattan Island falling one after another like the world's biggest domino rally.

That's not a conspiracy, unless you consider the open and above-board actions of a literal army of propagandists a "conspiracy." The Bush Administration didn't intercept any of the planes for the same reason it let Iraq fall into a quagmire: they were so afraid of what the media would tell the voters about them shooting down hijacked planes that they chose to let them go, and ended up causing more death and destruction as a direct result.

That's why people are turning to Trump, against the will of both the Republicans and the Democrats. The mainstream GOP might be an unwilling slave to the media, but they're still a slave; all the media has to do is threaten them with accusations of "racism" and they fold like a cheap suit. Whereas Trump eats up all the abuse the entire international media empire can heap on him, and just keeps stumping on like it's nothing.

The choice really is either Trump, or an eternal Orwellian nightmare.

>Pentagon
Man, have i got news for you....

You mean, besides all the plane-parts laying around it? Like the big-ass jet engine on the lawn? Or the cctv-cam in the parking lot actually filming the plane as it hits?