You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

15
-8

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

Heat can weaken the beams to make them bend. A slight bend can set off a catastrophic collapse. It took almost two hours for the towers to collapse, plenty of cook time to weaken the beams. Also, it's easy to forget that in 1993 another terrorist attack looking to take down the towers involved the detonating of a half ton truck bomb at the base of the north tower. It's unknown how the structural integrity of the north tower was effected by this blast at its base, but it likely contributed.

Think about it, both bush sr and Clinton waged offensives in the region, and America has been in wars its entire history. Did America really need to blow up its own buildings to convince its people to keep doing the same shit it was already doing?

The Saudis are deflecting, because the redacted portion of the 9/11 papers includes what anyone who has read wiki leaks already knows. The Saudis are the primary funders of terrorism, and Saudi citizens and royalty were both directly involved with training the hijackers.

1
13

[–] Hektik 1 point 13 points (+14|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Explain building 7 in regard of that talking head regurgitation. Or the fact that jet fuel wasn't present outside the area of impact. How does the top floor impact collapse the bottom floor? Or a building that wasn't as hit directly like building 7. Also the prior attack gave motive of reinforcing the buildings which was already done a year prior or so to the attacks.

Also explain to me how none of these skyscrapers crashed into its own footprint. https://imgur.com/a/w5iuG

http://s224.photobucket.com/user/88Badmachine88/media/MH2.jpg.html

FOIA request of Turner Construction doing "fireproofing" renovations prior to 9/11

0
5

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

No one ever replies after you mention building and 7 together in one sentence. It was clearly an inside job, no one wants to admit it though.

0
1

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

Also explain to me how none of these skyscrapers crashed into its own footprint. https://imgur.com/a/w5iuG

Funny how there are no depictions of the south side of 7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WJgFc4wIaQ

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

1
-1

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

I'll give it a shot, let's see how low I can go.

When an 800,000 lb plan collides with a structure at roughly 400 miles per hour that energy is transferred to the structure. This would momentum would sheer many secondary supporting structures on its way theough. Any sizeable chunks (particularly the engine) that strike the primary support beams could easily dislodge them from their optimal positions.

This sort of tremendous force coming from an angle that was never imagined by the designers would seriously compromise the structure.

Now there were quite a few floors on top of the impact site. That's a hell of a lot of weight sitting on top of a now seriously compromised structure.

Now take that scenario and add the fire.

I imagine it knocked the sprinklers out for the surrounding floors, although they wouldn't have helped too much.

A 747's fuel tanks, like most airplanes, are located inside the wings. When they follow the fuselage through the intitial gap in the building, they're going to either fold back again the plane, or sheer off, depending on the amount of resistance they meet.

I imagine it did a bit of both, but either way, upon entering it started spraying fuel which became an aerosol and ignited.

Let me side track for a moment and remind you how intense a normal office fire is. Basically everything in an office building is flammable. Some of it like that cubical wall or the hundreds of pounds of paper is more flammable than others. Office fires burn fiercely due to how hot some of that shit burns at.

Add that into the equation.

So basically all of this heat would travel upwards through the path of least resistance, the elevator shaft. It would eventually heat some damaged beams to the point that they would slump. All this weight compiled on top of them would force them to slump even further.

Eventually one fails, maybe that wasn't enough, perhaps more started to fall, causing a cascade.

It all seems reasonable if you look at the physics of it.

Now, inb4 as the kids say.

I can't explain shit for WT7, maybe the CIA took an open opportunity to get rid of some stuff.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] revofire 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

We already made our rebuttal. It's proven that it was an inside job by general knowledge and common sense. However we're always open to argument, but remember to realistically address ALL points and not just one. Also his argument is flat out wrong.

0
3

[–] faultyfix 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

*three

0
1

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

i rebuttled the shit outta him.

enjoy.

1
-1

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

which part would you like? It taking 2 hours, or the fact that the north tower's base was bombed in 1993? Or that the beams may have been compromised by temperature?

0
2

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