16 years later can jet fuel really melt steel?
This has been proven time and time again not to be aluminum by its colour.
16 years later let's look at the science
James Myers
Other urls found in this thread:
ae911truth.org
nist.gov
nist.gov
youtube.com
debunking911.com
popularmechanics.com
metabunk.org
twitter.com
David Myers
fuck off
Landon Rogers
ae911truth.org
16 years later NIST still has not released the inputs for their collapse models of wtc 1, 2 or 7.
Daily reminder asymmetrical damage will not lead to a symmetrical collapse, structural resistance will slow down collapse acceleration and the pancake "theory" os pseudoscience.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMTFVeRbpC4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
Michael Robinson
Literally who gives a fuck, either a building crashed into an airplane or it blew up from explosives. Neither one is a scientific issue and this belongs on /pol/.
Angel Edwards
nufag get good. all you can say to actual science is fuck off? fucking shameful. you are the absolute reason why Veeky Forums sucks now. get off my board brainlet. why don't you fuck off, and get good faggot.
Gabriel Fisher
So, you can't explain how asymmetrical damage leads to symmetrical collapse.
Noted.
Ryan Nelson
Want some science?
Debunk this.
Fixed version share it around if you like.
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.
Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.
So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.
9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2
9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2
At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.
Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.
We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.
To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.
The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.
The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.
So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.
Juan Phillips
This is a Veeky Forums issue because we can use science to show the O/S is bunk, I was hoping to avoid /pol/'s less ..tactful.. posters.
William Collins
I know you think your post is objective or scientific because it contains numbers, but this is a huge collection of bullshit right there.
Anthony Parker
For example, some more science, we can get contaminated aluminium to glow a reddish color in direct sunlight, however it is similar to a water and oil mixture and when poured or stirred the aluminum is silver in direct sunlight.
The molten metal we saw from wrc 2 was clearly steel, this is irrefutable and NIST's report doesn't touch it.
I was hoping to find people too smart to fall for the BS OS.
Benjamin Hall
We can't do that with a couple of camera videos of extremely uninformative angles. There's also no reproduction of the experiment so this is pseudoscience at best. Try your luck with /x/, they at least understand physics better than /pol/ that's for sure.
Noah Johnson
...
Camden Howard
We can clearly show the free-fall of building 7 is impossible using physics.
Structural resistance always decreases fall acceleration.
Newtons third law.
Sebastian Ross
That's not how it works at all.
It will have 100% structural resistance until it reaches it's ultimate stress then it fails catastrophically.
Caleb Diaz
That's not the way buildings work.
The collapse was initiated in a single point causing a plumb symmetrical collapse at free-fall, this violates what we understand about physics.
Look at NIST's model that couldn't simulate wtc 7s collapse even with their classified magic numbers.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNEKtvB80us
Our physics will not predict the collapse saw, not even once much less three times.
Don't be blind to hard science.
Robert Scott
Here are 60 structural engineers that agree with me.
ae911truth.org
Jordan Barnes
All that shows is that the collapse was not initiated at a single point but instead an overall weakening of the structure
Brandon Perry
/thread
Brody Barnes
Why does NIST cite a single column failure as the point / cause of collapse?
Do some research, desu.
Ian Smith
Here.
nist.gov
You are proving my point.
Eli Hall
It's engineers. Always the fucking engineers that peddle this bullshit conspiracy crap. There's a reason people on Veeky Forums point and laugh at you engineer cranks, no one takes you seriously.
Hunter Reed
Because I'm an engineer I can't argue against the official 9/11 story.
Great logic, brainlet.
Maybe engineers know its bullshit...
Josiah Howard
Learn to reply, engineers tend to lend themselves to crank ideas because they aren't scientists, no matter how much they want to believe they are, they're not, and as such they are highly prone to crank ideas and conspiracies, 9/11 being chief among them.
By the way
is a sad appeal to authority, an authority which doesn't even have any authority, just fucking pathetic. Also, this thread doesn't belong on Veeky Forums, get the fuck back to Good day.
Daniel Myers
People who care for truth, "give a fuck" you will find we are anything but alone.
Julian Sullivan
>free fall
nope, at no point in time do the buildings ever achieve free fall speeds. This is an incorrect assumption by uneducated idiots using ill supported logic.
It's easy to see that the buildings are NOT falling at free fall speeds because debris which IS falling at free fall speeds reaches the ground much more quickly than the building itself (this debris also helped obscure the building collapse and is the reason idiots like you still claim this already debunked garbage)
Dominic Evans
>I don't understand applied mathematics thus I believe the official reports
Nice thinking, brainlet.
Jose Baker
Here
>Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
nist.gov
Brainlet.
Thankyou for being based, user.
Elijah Hernandez
Implying their models can seriously 'simulate' the collapse of WTC 1 and 2? Computer simulations being 'science' are all the hotness now I guess.
Justin Brown
Dont be a moron..
Xavier James
Dylan Flores
Hi shills ;D
Jonathan Hughes
another sockpuppet thread
Ayden Fisher
Tell me, in your own words, how structural resistance provides zero effect on fall acceleration.
This is physics, show me I'm wrong, if you can.
Evan Nelson
At no point in time do I need to say 'in my own words'. That's just moronic. I posted great debunking sites. Read them yourself.
Christian Rivera
>wants to believe the official story so badly he's scared to make his own opinion.
>believes posing links to "debunking" sites debunks anything
Those sites are run by shills, it's pseudo science, I showed you in my own words, why can't you debunk it in your own words?
This is not cluesforum and I don't wear a tinfoil hat.
Carson Jackson
You are scared to debate because the truth movement has all the evidence and science on our side.
Isaac Morgan
Dear god man, the NIST report you reference doesn't even agree with your statements. The fall occurred in stages. The total collapse takes 5.4 seconds.
You are literally making shit up, shown that you're wrong, arguing that you have proven it already, shown that you're wrong, then demand your original assessment be argued against despite the fact that it doesn't fit the data. Your argument now boils down to 'anything that proves me wrong is part of the conspiracy and can't be used to prove me wrong'
Seriously, fuck off already.
Dear god I don't even know why I'm still here.
Jackson Wright
Literally the best the O/S has.
Sad, desu.