If Jet fuel can melt steel, and office fires cause building collapses, I must be a sheep.

[Gigabyte71]

Damn, when I saw this, I almost crapped in my pants from laughing.

 

[AmbiEncE]

Marginalized already. That didn't take long.

 

[chucklenut]

Marginalized already. That didn't take long.

because the fact is that on 9/11 a bunch of pissed of muslims rammed some big ass planes into some buildings ****ing **** up

the people who promote 9/11 conspiracy theories are either willfully ignorant or are writing books about it to get $$$

 

[GeauxLSU]

because the fact is that on 9/11 a bunch of pissed of muslims rammed some big ass planes into some buildings ****ing **** up

the people who promote 9/11 conspiracy theories are either willfully ignorant or are writing books about it to get $$$

I can only imagine how the families of those that died that day view these absurd motiveless rantings.

 

[strider12]

I can only imagine how the families of those that died that day view these absurd motiveless rantings.

You can't imagine how many think there is a lot more to the story than we are being told. I know quite a few. And LEOs that were on the scene.

 

[AmbiEncE]

I can only imagine how the families of those that died that day view these absurd motiveless rantings.

That's as lame as raging on alcohol because a person died from a dui'er...... The children, the children. You guys have some liberal blood flowing and ya don't know it.

From the simulations on the same day to the hijackers, no video, generators blowing up in the basement, buildings falling from jet fuel? LoL!

 

[Constitution Hour]

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

first of all the jet fuel argument is retarded. fire is hot, fire causes metal to weaken and expand.

the reason the building pancaked the way it did is because the WTC complex had massive generators in the underground portions of its building. the impact and fire resulted in a rupture in the generators which caused a fire below (I think it was diesel fuel). this weakened the support structures and caused the buildings to collapse into the voided underground space (yes this is true for WTC7 as well)

again, popular mechanics did an awesome job of explaining this

Nist specified that no "pancaking" took place. What they did claim is the 70 or 80 stories below the failure point did not offer any resistance to the 28 floor segment falling from above. That is why some engineers have taken issue with the NIST report.
[NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.]

The generator story is only in relation to building 7.

 

[woodstock]

Lol

 

[GeauxLSU]

“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

I'm not sure why such a simple concept is so hard for some to comprehend.

 

[Bellman2]

i hate that argument

the 9/11 conspiratards

errrg

for all those who are tired of trying to prove simple physics to a bunch of retards, popular mechanics did an awesome spread in 2003 and then again in 2006 and finally in 2011 compiled all the articles into a nice book debunking every 9/11 conspiracy theory out there

Yes they did, but you can't debunk conspiratards. They have to have something to keep them going.