[–] [deleted] 26 points 51 points (+77|-26) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

7
29

[–] 9513006? 7 points 29 points (+36|-7) ago  (edited ago)

That third plane was likely flight 93, and it was shot down because the pilots managed to regain control from the low-jacked computer system.

The explosives/thermite was likely supposed to be set off just after the crash, but since it wasn't coming they had to do it anyway or be discovered.

2
18

[–] alele-opathic 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago  (edited ago)

From @gabara:

A third plane was supposed to hit it, but the passengers stopped them.

From @DeportGarbage:

it was shot down because the pilots managed to regain control from the low-jacked computer system.

This is an important distinction to be made - the plane's "wreckage" had none of the signatures of typical wreckage, namely mangled body panels, or any of the structure of the craft. IIRC, part of a single turbine impeller was the largest thing recovered from the "crash" site. Though the plane was shot down in the middle of nowhere in PA, at least two locals report the sound of a loud explosion followed by an unmarked white fighter leaving in the area. One report was by an old Vietnam War vet.

The 'hero story' was hastily invented after the fact, and is also very easily (pardon the pun) shot down with just a little research.

It's hard to find information on the event given that so many of the old websites keeping track of this stuff have shut down over the years. The old Dave McGowan site was a treasure trove for this, but he suddenly contracted late stage lung cancer and died at 55.

 

Keep your wits about you gents, something about this topic has brought out all the bots and shills. Remember to check account ages and post histories.

1
-1

[–] 9515955? 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Explain Daniel Lewin being on 93. I know why. I want to see what to think

7
-4

5
13

[–] Empress 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

^

15
-12

0
4

[–] Moose_of_Reason 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

People (normies) are too afraid to admit this to themselves.

0
1

[–] TAThatBoomerang 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's quite simple to understand that it was controlled demolition. The WTC was falling at almost exactly freefall speeds. This is only possible if the lower parts of the building was destroyed (presumably via explosives of some sort). If it was a natural collapse, the collapse would be significantly slower (or even not made possible) because of the tons upon tons of structure underneath the burning segment that's holding it up.

61
46

[–] WedgeSerif 61 points 46 points (+107|-61) ago 

Fire did not "melt" steel beams. It softened them. If you'd paid attention in your high school chemistry class, you would know that a single atom or molecule has a melting point, but a mixture of substances does not. Steel is a mixture (alloy) of iron, carbon, and tin. As it heats, it softens, like candle wax. If you look at photos of the debris at Ground Zero, you'll see steel beams twisted and bent as if they were made of clay.

The way the Twin Towers were designed contributed to their collapse. Each tower was basically a hollow steel tube with another tube containing elevators running up the middle. Each floor was supported by cleats attached to these tubes. As the fires raged, the cleats and their supports softened, leading to the failure of one floor. Again, because of the buildings' design, when one floor collapsed, the weight of the building was transferred to the other floors, which were also being weakened by the burning jet fuel. A positive feedback loop then commenced, with each floor failing more quickly than the last due to the increasing stress put on them. Finally, the stress was too much for the building, and the entire structure failed.

The building in London wasn't nearly as tall/massive/heavy as the Twin Towers, and it had a more internally stable design than could withstand the stress the fire put on it. It also, from what I could tell, had a significant amount of concrete in its construction, which the Twin Towers did not.

Or, you could just be a retard and blame the Jews.

17
54

[–] dkyuss 17 points 54 points (+71|-17) ago  (edited ago)

Specifically we are talking of WTC 7 that was not hit by planes. No jet fuel.

Memory refresh https://youtu.be/nc9Xad6ooPo?t=25s

Now try again.

17
8

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 17 points 8 points (+25|-17) ago 

It was hit by debris and was engulfed in flames for hours. An entire face of the building was missing. (Which, by the way, destroys the theory that the WTC "collapsed in on itself." Massive debris were thrown everywhere by both the collisions and collapses.)

8
7

[–] Synthicide 8 points 7 points (+15|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Maybe WTC 7 collapsed because it was bombarded with giants chunks of a colossal building falling on it.

4
0

[–] o0shad0o 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The reason WTC 7 failed from the bottom is almost half of the bottom two ten floors was a giant room containing an electrical substation, backup generators and diesel fuel tanks to run them.

24
-10

5
41

[–] TeranNotTerran 5 points 41 points (+46|-5) ago 

I must be retarded for thinking the free fall speed of the collapse was suspect. Or for being curious about Bush's brother getting the security contract for the building weeks before. Or for the debris being shipped off as soon as possible.

8
36

[–] somefuckingguy15 8 points 36 points (+44|-8) ago 

Or the owner silverstien taking out a large insurance policy against the building two weeks before.

Or the fact that it happened while all the Jews were out of the building for a holiday.

The coincidences line up.

0
2

[–] ShineShooter 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Here's a gif of the moment.

1
2

[–] 9516060? 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

What about ol' (((lucky larry)))

1
1

[–] illuminalto 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

You're not retarded, you're looking at a shill.

6
16

[–] Banned4Truth 6 points 16 points (+22|-6) ago 

. A positive feedback loop then commenced, with each floor failing more quickly than the last due to the increasing stress put on them. Finally, the stress was too much for the building, and the entire structure failed.

What bunch of malarkey. Positive feedback loop? lol Each floor should have subsequently slowed down the initial collapse as the kinetic energy is dissipated with each collapse past the impact zone and fires. Buildings are designed to stand, not fall.

2
5

[–] Crux 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

It is actually called the collapsing principal. It is how martial artist break a bunch of bricks so long as there are spacers between them.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

12
-7

12
11

[–] BigBlackSpook 12 points 11 points (+23|-12) ago 

Fuck off, your nose is comming through my monitor

5
16

[–] ChosenUndead 5 points 16 points (+21|-5) ago 

Mossad

4
11

[–] DalaiFarmer 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago 

It's funny how nobdy talks about the dancing israeli's filming the event to document it, of which they admitted to on israeli television, and additionally the only one's arrested on the day with explosives were israelis too.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

8
14

[–] individualin1984 8 points 14 points (+22|-8) ago 

No Jet Fuel.

But seriously, there is no way to seriously compare these two buildings with each other. No matter what you believe on the subject, this is not a good argument.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 12 points (+17|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
14

[–] individualin1984 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

Let me preface this with the statement that I do not want to argue any particular side on this, because I see issues from both sides in the complete stories being told. That being said the whole steel beam discussion is not one of the issues with the discussion. Unless they were built with the same construction methods, you are comparing two different things. The flaw that caused the failure (according to the official description) was with how each floor attached to the outer structure. The relatively small amount of metal that held up the floors was much more sensitive to loss of rigidity at this connection point. If the apartment building did not have this same floor attachment mechanism then it is not a valid comparison. Now if you want to somehow fly a drone into the structure and show that there is zero warpage in every single steel beam in that entire structure, then you may have the start of an argument. Unfortunately we have several examples where fires under bridges have warped steel.

0
1

[–] TAThatBoomerang 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But seriously, there is no way to seriously compare these two buildings with each other. No matter what you believe on the subject, this is not a good argument.

Shut down conversation without talking about it. If you're confident that you know what you're talking about, you would be able to easily disprove whatever anybody has to say about the similarities of WTC and London building fire.

0
1

[–] individualin1984 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Why does everyone want to argue this but not something more interesting to me ... All I am trying to say is watch blanket statements that make your arguments seem frivolous. Like I said elsewhere the most shocking thing in all of this is the lack of jewish casualties. This points better than an argument over metallurgy and steel framing techniques, that quickly glazes over people's eyes and can easily be shifted due to simple things like construction methods.

0
1

[–] 160065002 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

yeah get that scared liberal who can't think for himself. fuckin sheep

3
6

[–] CognitiveDissident5 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

The building in London, well I think it's an insurance scam. It's a shitty social housing tower block situated in a prime area. They want to gentrify the area, move the social tenants out. This is a great way to do it. Also, there are connections to one of ((luck Larry's)) associates, check out spudgy pang on YouTube, he explains it.

0
1

[–] Zippy1983 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They just spent £65,000 per unit to upgrade the heating and fire safety!

Then to find it burns really well is bad news.

If it's an insurance job, it goes deep in two fronts, because the upgrade seems about as crony as you can get!

£65,000 a piece could build brand new proper state built houses with gardens and stuff! Never mind just upgrades.

The entire thing doesn't stack up.

1
0

[–] hypercat 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Yes the fire alarms did not work, and there were no sprinklers........

0
0

[–] A_M_Swallow 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The building is owned by the city so it is not an insurance scam.

Now wrong sort of tenant may be a different matter. The tenants will always be social tenants because anyone with money soon buys their own home. However considering who the Mayor of Greater London is; it may be replacing whites with Muslims.

0
0

[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Or it could just be slumlords being slumlords. (the insurance angle is plausible though)

2
0

[–] GIF-lLL-S0NG [S] 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

With all the other islamic attacks going on, it wont be hard to solve THIS. Just wait for the news on increased secuirty, more defense spending, staying in the EU to fight "terrorism"

2
6

[–] Trapezoidal 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

How does fire melt steel beams the same way that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction

0
0

[–] TAThatBoomerang 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The same way the only arab dictatorships in need of liberating are those who switched from selling their oil in US dollars to either Euro or gold. Such a coincidence that US aggression starts immediately after the countries have made the switch.

3
6

[–] R34p_Th3_Wh0r1w1nd 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

Thermite.

0
5

[–] mcdowell_ag 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Of possible interest - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-would-have-collapsed-built-four-years-earlier/ "Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974, so would have needed to comply with strict new regulations which ensured buildings would not fall down in the event of a blast, or a major fire."

0
1

[–] CognitiveDissident5 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

People who live there have made claims the building projects are used to whitewash funds and that corruption is rife in terms of who is awarded the contract. Also apparently an associate of lucky Larry is connected. Check out spudgy pang on YouTube.

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)