Skip to content
Two planes, three buildings, do the math.

68 Comments

For the last time, steel doesn’t have to ‘melt’ for it to lose it’s structural integrity. The loss of 20-30% of the structural members of a building from a 400mph+ collision, plus a massive fire in a giant ‘chimney-like’ structure, will cause extremely hot steel – not molten – to sag, deform, and lose most if not all of its weight-bearing capability.

If I was intent of pursuing investigation into conspiracy theories, I’d rather spend my time investigating Building 7, not the WTC.

Tower 7 had a giant fire in it too, we’re usually shown the side that’s not on fire to mislead us into thinking it was fine up until the sudden collapse. Even from the famous angle, you can see smoke billowing out the other side.

The water pressure was very low, probably due to collasping buildings fucking up the lines. The firefighters and sprinkler system couldn’t do much.

Ahem……footage of molten steel………

This. Fun fact: before modern times smiths could not melt steel. Only soften it. And yet they still could do all kind of craftmenship with that soft – but still solid – steel. That’s how much it loses it’s rigidity with temperature.

Fun fact II.: Properly treated wood actually resists fire longer than steel. Despite the fact that wood is flammable and steel is not, becouse wood keeps it’s rigidity even while burning, a building made with wooden frames will take longer to collapse when it burns than a building made with steel frames.

yeah, but the lower portions of the building were still cold, therefore there would be resistance to collapse, thus the building would not fall at free fall speed and its highly unlikely that it would fall straight down

Building 7 collapsed because all the structural, most load-bearing materials were along the outside edge of the building, drawing the border of the structure. It collapsed inward for similar reasons, and because the firefighting efforts were abandoned, allowing those same structural compromises to occur. It didn’t collapse all at once, like an implosion, but it did come down quite rapidly. The “innards” sunk and fell, but it’s when that outside border of that square structure fell that it looked to be imploding all at once.

The buildings coming down is no conspiracy, it’s physics.

The dancing jews who seemingly knew what was about to go down the day before, who were on Israeli TV as agents, who were found to have trace amounts of explosives on their vehicles though….

The buildings were designed to withstand plane strikes, so that point is kind of moot. Though I agree, 9/11 has at least a dozen other avenues leading directly to conspiracy.

Also Mossad planted thermite all over the building to amplify the strike. And that’s not getting into other potential sabotages and means that may have been used.

mechanical engineer here – if you heat up ‘normal’ structural steel (which is what I assume the towers were built out of) to just around 4-500 degrees centigrade, which is more than possible in a fire like that, then they lose around 80-90% of their structural integrity.

they don’t turn into butter – but they sure as hell aren’t fit to hold up a building anymore – and once the top third of the tower came down on the rest of the tower, its structural components couldn’t hold up to that either – no building is designed to hold up against another building falling on it, unless you’re building a bunker

Yeah, the bottom of the building held up the middle and the top, until the top fell into the middle. Then the whole thing disintegrated, throwing pieces of steel beams hundreds of yards horizontally. Dipshit. The next time I meet some guy claiming to be an engineer, I’m going to punch him in the mouth if he starts talking.

even the most basic physics simulation can demonstrate that happening. When things buckle, downward force translates into horizontal force. When the majority (all) of the supports for the outer frames being inside, naturally things will buckle outwards. Now consider the amount of downward force that would have been acting on the mid sections of the building when the top come down, then consider how high up that still was in the air. Yeah debris would absolutely end up several hundred yards away.

Have you ever built a small block tower and made it collapse as a kid? Did you see how far some of those blocks would fly? scale that up. simple enough.

Have someone stand on your back, walking massage style, not so bad right?

Now have that same person climb a couple of chairs and jump directly on your spine. They weigh the same, what could possibly go wrong just by letting them freefall a bit before hitting you, right?

It wasn’t the heat it was the blast. The explosion knocked out the support chunks that were already structurally unsound due to recent asbestos removal and the weight pushed through the rest of the building.

Yes, the blast from all the explosives that were deployed before.
And what? The asbestos was removed beforehand?
Do you have a source for that?
According to my understanding, the asbestos could’nt be removed properly at all without incinerating the whole building… oh wait?
The whole building WAS incinerated!

When you ignite a plane full of gasoline, it explodes. Hence the blast. Slight mistake on the removal part. The top floors were simply made without asbestos. The point still stands. Besides, if the blast came from the bottom of the building, the survival rate for those on the bottom floor would be close to zero, yet many of them made it out.

A building isn’t detonated from the bottom, the charges are placed all over the whole building and the least ones at the bottom if any at all.

Extensive elevator maintenance done just prior to the attacks, by a small unknown company that shuttered shortly after. (Thyssen Elevators had been dismissed.) Elevator shafts ran next to the central columns.

It is pretty amazing to realize that it *could* have been pulled off. Many moving parts, but well within the realm of possibility. Never fully investigated. Check out journalist Chris Bollyn for the full details.

“The asbestos was removed beforehand?
Do you have a source for that?”

Fire insulation on steel support structures was not present, iirc.

Steel doesn’t have to melt for rivets and joints to become structurally compromised. A sufficient amount of heat, for a sufficient amount of time can compromise structural integrity.

There are relevant conspiracies – actual – but I presume the physical nature of the collapses to be one of them.

The celebrating Jews, who were confirmed Mossad, who seemingly had knowledge of the attack prior to the events… now that’s pretty fucky.

Asbestos makes structural steel sound, huh? What do dicks taste like?

No, asbestos is used as thermal insulation. When you see it on structural steel, it’s not to keep the steel cold like you see it on ducting and whatnot, but as a preventative measure in case of fire.

If you go into the utility areas of large structures, you’ll often see a stucco-like material on support beams and such. That is there to keep steel from cooking too much. A sufficient amount of heat can compromise the a steel structure far before “melting” point. At joints, rivets can be greatly compromised by the general male malleability of heating and cooling steel.

So, not so much a no as it is a yes — asbestos, or thermal insulation, does make steel structurally sound, in the case of fire or such, or it at least helps for a time.

The sublimation temperature of hydrogen cyanide (zyklon B, among other products) is 26.5C, or about 80F

Average temperatures around Oświęcim (Auschwitz) has the highest at about 24C in summer and the lowest around -6C.

That feel when you must run central heating even in Summer to do your casual pellet throw gassings.

Hey, you made a good comic. So long as you don’t actually believe this horseshit, but knowing you I bet you fell for it just so you could hate the towelheads a little more. Hail Satan.

I don’t hate the towelheads, but I do hate their ideology, which causes oppresses them and leads them to mass inbreeding, causing further, and further issues with their culture and heritable traits, of which compound things further.

I think 9/11 was probably more akin to the Lavon Affair though, so it’s more accurate to suggest that I’m “anti-semitic,” which is just a trick — https://youtu.be/D0kWAqZxJVE?t=14

When the loonies say “911 was an inside job,” they’re right, but they don’t really know.

When the loonies say “Bush did 911,” they’re potentially somewhat correct, but they don’t really know.

What they should be saying is, “Israel did 911.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar