WTC 7

>Is there any fucking jew cocksucker (american) that actually believes this bullshit?
no

and keked

Not that guy but the easiest way to explain how they fell is jet fuel. The jet fuel was hot enough to weaken the center column and made it bend/flex. The column went through the whole structure. I forget the material that covered it but it was shit.

Free fall speed?

Wow! Like... Wow! Otherworldly even!

>jidf shill

Glad someone could reply to a leaf like myself. So you're saying that the jet fuel managed to weaken the structural integrity of the steel to the point that the entire building collapsed? How does your model account for the symmetric collapse of the building at near free-fall speeds?

can't argue with that get

Reminder that a B-25 bomber crashed into empire state building, and less than 20 died.
Building was fine

Please give us your definition of 'free fall speeds" retard.

Right... yet barely (if any) "jet fuel" hit WTC 7.
Almost 100% of the jet fuel just burst up after it hit the main towers.

Jet fuel isn't this amazing Jesus-cum substance that disobeys the laws of physics and burns forever. It's just like the gas you put in your car, but slightly more potent

No and
will you please be my ai gf

I dunno man. My problem with building 7 theories is the same as my problem with the majority of theories about what "really" happened that day: why not just use a plane instead of risking exposure? That thing where people claim a missile hit the pentagon? Why not just use a plane? The claims that something else, such as an experimental aircraft or missile, was used to hit the twin towers or building 7? Why not just use a plane? Using something else and then trying to cover it up is orders of magnitude riskier to the conspiracy than just, you know, crashing a plane.

There is no possible way that wtc7 collaps from jet fuel, debris, fire, space aliens, or any crazy thing.

It was demo'd professionally, which took weeks to wire, for the reason of financial cover up and profit. Then... blame Israel's enemy.

You got a 747.
Here's a link. You can debate with engineers, physicists, and architects until you're blue in the face:

www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

But a plane didn't hit tower 7.

Kerosene

The max speed of a B-25 is 300mph at 15,000 feet.
So being generous, that B-25 was probably going 125mph.
The jets (made of much more and tougher material in the first place) hit at roughly 525mph.

If this remains questionable to you, think about how a bullet works.

Wasn't there a lot of precious metals stored under the WTC? What happened to them?

>what are variables

Drop a ball from bridge. Time it.

Free fall speed calculated from height.

It was done over the course of several years, this is evident by an accidental explosion occuring in 1993. It took 8 years to sneak in enough explosives to professionally detonate thaose buildings without raising any suspicions.

Yes, but two buildings fell after ONE HOUR AFTER THE HIT.

You say it like it is similar to a bullet. Wrong!

9.8 m/s^2

>belives the rushed reports that were paid off that does not even list the cause of wtc 7 collapse

I think he's just trying to nitpick the fact that I said "free-fall speeds" rather than acceleration. He's using this to try to discredit my argument rather than taking it on because he lacks the scientific understanding and more importantly the proof to do so. Furthermore, he likely believes the media's take on the incident, which proves that he's a bigger tard.

But why not just fly an extra plane in to it? You've already organised 4 hijackings, why risk endangering the whole conspiracy to save yourself a little extra work?

No no... Buildings had work done to them for fire for a few weeks. Underground tunnels with trucks. No need to stretch out for years. Jeez!

>The jets (made of much more and tougher material
You're implying that a civilian airplane is tougher than a military bomber?

Ok

>daily reminder that 9/11 was the first time in HUMAN HISTORY that a highrise collapsed from being on fire
>hundreds of buildings stood strong, yet 3 buildings fucking collapsed on the same day
>15 years later, no building has yet to collapse again from a fire

Amazing isn't it? What are the odds :p

Seriously, a steel ball dropped from the same height would take about the same time as the time it took for buildings to fall.

The twin towers and building 7 were connected through a common foundation. When the twin towers came down a lot of it hit building 7, and that plus damage to the foundation brought it down.

It wasn't brought down by a small fire, it was brought down by structural damage. If the point were for it to be a false flag dropping the twin towers would've been more than enough.

jet fuel also doesn't burn all that well unless its a fine mist. Most of it expends with the initial impact any anything left over is just gonna smolder for a couple hours.
>people actually believe smoldering jet fuel is hot enough to cause the ENTIRE structure from top all the way to the 15 or whatever fucking floors underground to cataclysmically fail without any intervention.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Building#Plane_crash

Plane wont take out the base of building. Those buildings needed to be demo'd for asbestos. They needed to come down completely.

That's why it fell from the top down right?

No larry needed more insurance money.

They also fell perfectly straight downwards without much damage to surrounding buildings. Whoever did the demo did an excellent job. Military? Some other contractor willing to take a payout to keep quiet? Maybe they were "erased" after or maybe it was a heavy blackmail.

I think they didint want/plan to destroy the 7 at first.
Meaby it rose up in some planning near the end and it was already too late to plan anything good for it but they had to go for it if they wanted to keep the secrets so they just demolished it with explosives and hoped for the best.

It was hit by debris form the other tow buildings

>TFW Heinz actually believes a fertilizer truck bomb outside of a building could do this on its own

Yer batshit crazy!!! Kek!

It fell by center column into its own footprint. Ayy LMAO

The point of this thread was there was no plane that hit WTC 7. Thus there was NO jet fuel burning in WTC7.

Your opinion on anything related to America is irrelevant leaftard

It actually covered up a massive amount of s&l loan scandles and the city control bunker. There is video on this stuff everywhere.

Th whole point of using the plane is that it "proves" that it was an act of terrorism. You can of course put bombs in a building (to ensure its total destruction) and then fly a plane in to it to fool people in to thinking the whole thing was an attack (which is the only 911 conspiracy theory I'm willing to consider), but only doing that for 3/4 of the building hit doesn't make any sense and completely destroys the allegedly constructed narrative.

Yeah. It's remarkable how people mock 9/11 conspiracies for being too far-fetched yet when asked to explain their reasoning, resort to bizarre claims that make significantly less sense. Take the following burger's theory, for example:

"It was hit by debris form the other tow buildings."

How does this account for free-fall and symmetry? Also, the lack of any significant/catastrophic impact from debris?

A center column damaged by 1,000,000 tons of building material crashing all around it, on top of it, damaging the foundation, dragging town pedestrian bridges on the 3rd floor and fires, yes.

Fallacy

I just want an extension that download rare flags automatically.

B-25s were armored, regular civilian jet aircraft are made to be light as possible

Agreed. Wtc7 was a major fuck up. Major.

It certainly can. Ammonium nitrate bombs have a pretty high yield.
youtu.be/kJEnfzlR1HY?t=151

Yeah me because I am able to understand NIST and I am not a frothing at the mouth nutcase.

idk why i wrote tow lol must be tired. I don't think it it accounts for it but i was just throwing it out there. I dont know where to stand on 9/11, a lot seems fishy but I'm also not an engineer

Yeah, post the NIST reasoning of WTC7 collapse.
Protip: you cant, it does not exist.

1 million tons of debris did not hit it. The debris turned to dust, mostly, and fell straight down... Like you said... Pancaked. Bridges connecting the TWO towers, yea. But a bridge from one building to another is not the golden gate bridge. It has no massive foundation like wtc 7.

This is rabbit hole-esque.

>understands NIST
Please, tell me the only time it possible for an object to fall at freefall speed?

[spoiler]when there is 0 resistance beneath it[/spoiler]

Really causes my neural cells to depolarize by opening gated channels in the membrane and passively diffusing potassium ions out of the cytoplasm down its concentration gradient leading to a sequence of action potentials to stimulate in accord with long term potentiation pathways developed through the release of seratonin at key moments of sensory input.

Haven't heard back from this pretentious burger shart. Please explain how building 7 collapsed and try to account for everything in your explanation (you may consult NIST's report at any time). Keep in mind that there have been publications in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals that go over this all in better detail, all of which has not been contested. They even go over the bullshit in the NIST report. But yeah, be sure to rebut all of that and then have it published too while you're at it. We'll all be waiting here.

building 7 was full of records of lost money from the Pentagon and the biggest stock manipulation criminal case ever.

both were dropped after this. also other cases

Read more

...

I don't think that's true, you can still have resistance beneath and free fall acceleration if you have some force applied from above.

Consult this website for information:
ae911truth.org/

Remember that all these scientists can show is the evidence and what happened, as well as the fact that NIST which was responsible for scientifically unravelling what happened much like a detective at a crime scene did a terrible job (i.e. they started with their conclusion, and cherry picked evidence to support it... ignoring evidence that poked holes in their theory... basically turning science upside down). As for WHY it happened, that's open for debate.

>damaged 1 or 48 steel columns in a building with a 1000 to 1 redundancy so if one area failed the other supports could easily pick up the extra weight

Sorry.
Also trade center's 1 and 2 were specifically built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 which was the largest commercial jet at the time.
Even if all of the support beams were severed where the planes hit the rest of the building theoretically could have supported it, at the very least the upper third of the building would have traveled through the path of least resistance, FAILING even that happening and the impossible scenario that it actually did fall through greatest resistance, Newton's third law applies here(and everywhere) meaning that only another third of the building could have possibly been pulverized, leaving the bottom 30 floors largely intact.

It wasn't a freefall, nigger.

7 was brought down with a controlled explosion. The explosives just happened to be there randomly

>What is convection?

What is pushing down? If it were weight from the above floors, there would be resistance as each floor collapses.

Additionally, floors in high rise steel structures are made in lattice configuration so that catastrophic damage to one area does not cause total failure of the floor. Think of it like a cargo net of steel and concrete mesh.

There would have to be a continuous downward force capable of forcing through every floor in milliseconds.

Literally impossible.

VOLTAGE GATED CHANNELS YOU FUCKING IDIOT

9/11 was a false flag and an insurance scam of epic proportions, you get more shekels if you remove all your properties.

Tell NIST to release their simulation software and math.

Near free fall it's within the margin, which indicates it met NO resistance from the lower 60 floors.

No, I mean, you made a disconnected statement about free fall, and I'm just correcting you there. I'm not saying that the force existed for wtc.

youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

Not what structural engineers and physics programs say when analyzing the video.

It was nearly freefall. Nearly.

what else would they be gated with, the fucking strong force?

This. This is the reason why everything else was planned perfectly when this insurance scam was thought out long ago and wtc 7 and pentagon attack was halfassed. (((They))) were not expecting the investigation of the lost funds and just desperately crammed it up with the other wtc attacs before ending up in the prison.

>NYC
>densest population of Jews outside Israel
Shit went to auction.

just a minor fire

So, it had 50 floors above? When the supports broke on the floor which was hit, the upper floors collapsed - fell down a meter or two or three. Do you understand how much energy is needed to stop 55 floors dropping down a few meters height?
Also, look at debris falling down and compare it to the building crashing down.

The fact that WTC7 fell at near freefall speed indicates that there was almost no resistance as it fell. These buildings are built in such a way as to prevent this with many redundant and compartmentalized support systems.

Please, read about how steel framed high rises are built. The way the building fell, within it's own footprint at near freefall speed is physically impossible without explosives timed with millisecond precision.

just a minor fire. goy

No... The fire department rigged the building amongst the chaos that very morning. (((Silverstein))) is innocent.

Please, user. Please. Reading comprehension. None of my posts were about WTC.

OPs pic is of WTC 7, (((newfriends)))

That much smoke is not a healthy or a hot fire.
The jets that struck were not completely full of fuel and most of the fuel burned off in the initial impact which you can watch videos of online.
What you see there is a poisonous office fire suffocating everyone in those floors.

Can someone post a video of a building NOT falling down with a freefall velocity?

Black Smoke is an indication of a fire starved of oxygen.

Aluminium DOES NOT React with Iron, Only with RUSTED Iron and I'm sure the twin towers were not full of powdered Iron rust filings.

So let's say the aluminium liquefied from the intense heat from burning jet fuel that was starving of oxygen and smoldering with black smoke, Sure the aluminium then pours down the building, then what? No reaction what so ever, There's no Iron Oxide to cause any sort of Thermite reaction..Unless.. there was deliberate Thermite Reactions going on inside the building, Or detonations on support columns as per a typical Controlled demolition.

9/11 is physically Impossible, A jet plane hitting the top of the towers DOES NOT some how damage the support columns at the base.

We're talking more so about building 7. Even still, a fire does not account for the symmetric collapse of the twin towers. Nor does it account for the evidence of molten steel weeks after the event that were seen by witnesses during clean-up.

It seems that le evil conspiracy theorists win this time around because I still haven't seen any good argument so far from the people defending the media/NIST's account of the event..

you know what I love about
>free fall speed
when you look at the collapse and you see chunks that fell off hit the ground before the collapse hits the ground.

It was after ONE HOUR! Steel buildings burn for days and do not fall. Fire fighters, rip, said they had control of it.

jet fuel doesn't burn like a wood fire, bro.

jet fuel burns for a long period of time, just like if you dump gas on the ground and light it on fire

It's not about energy, clearly you don't understand the mechanics of building redundancy.
If one section fails another will pick up the slack up to 1000 times the original weight the beam was supporting.
The foundation of wtc7 couldn't have been damaged by debris falling on top of it.
Again, Newton's third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The entire building came down at near freefall speed, the only way this could happen is if all of the supports were severed in several places at once.
That's what we see happen, a controlled demolition is the only hypothesis that accurately describes building 7.

>starvation of oxygen
>fire cant burn
then whats this

checkmate, Z

Jet fuel is like diesel. It has a very high flash point, if the fire is not hot enough, then it won't light, it also doesn't gather pressure like gasoline either and explode unless there's a huge amount of energy and heat, like a jet crash.
That's an office fire.

Fire desperately searching for oxygen.

u wanna know what the exhaust gas temperatures are of the jet I fly?

775 degrees celcius

what does steel melt at?

>it's not about energy
But it clearly is, you're arguing that the building should not fall down at freefall speed - it's only possible if there was something slowing it down and the only thing that could, was the building itself, disintegrating and absorbing energy.
Hello, high-school educated american.

Fire fighters said over the radio that the fire was contained and controlled just before the collaps.

Come on, user. THE JEWS did WTC. What was contained in WTC7? Financial documents. And who would want financial documents destroyed? THE JEWS.

Nigga the insurance didn't nearly cover the cost of the building.

...

>call yourself red-pilled
>believe in WTC7
welcome to low IQ chan

You have really bad comprehension skills m8, I never said the "fire cant burn", I said the fuel to Oxidizer ratio is too rich, Aka, Too much fuel to too little oxygen, Which means a cold burn and lots of soot and smoke ash= A fire starved of oxygen.

1510

Really causes my neurons to form action potentials at the axon hillock via the result of the summation of excitatory and inhibitory post-synaptic potentials that was equal to or greater than the threshold potential, leading to the depolarization of the axon by the opening of voltage-gated channels that passively diffused ions down their concentration gradient leading to the release of neurotransmitters at the synapse to stimulate in accord with long term potentiation pathways developed through the release of seratonin at key moments of sensory input.

yes, caused by the jet fuel

Everybody believes it because they're afraid of being called crazy conspiracy theorists by retards.

>wtc 7
>Pentagon ghost plane
>another ghost plane that crashed in the field

Fucking 2001 and lack of social media and smart phones REEEEEEE

FUCK YOU GOOGLE

still high enough to weaken them

Nigga Celsius or Fahrenheit

Low end 1300 +/- a few.

...

1510 degrees C according to Google.

Imagine this happened today, false flag would be debunkend within a week.
It is time to get the corrupted fuckers at the top the top. PRAISE KEK

it can

Chemicals in the right amounts and circumstances can really fuck shit up

Keep hitting bottle, airman!

>fell because of minor fire
>not because it was hit by a 12 story chunk of WTC1
user pls

>OK Farmerboy

>Minor fiere
>compering outer steel structure without core to inner steel with core.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xfyB4CsXcDY

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

>using EGT as example
Use TIT instead.

huh?

uh, no. im looking at the temperature at the end of the cycle, not right at combustion

well fine, using that it's like 850 degrees celicus, or higher

I wonder why there are controled demolitions with explosives who are carefully planned, such that buildings collapse in the safest way. I never knew we could save money and just pour some jet fuel in there and light it for the same results.

Why, though?

1300 to 1500+ celcius

NEARLY DOUBLE THE TEMP!

Daily reminder that these building 7 conspiracy threads are CTR shit designed to make Cred Forums look like the tin-foil hat wearing lunatics that Clinton wants you to be.

Temperature can easily get to 2000 Celsius inside a jet engine. But don't tell that guy, he's a pilot, I'm sure he knows everything about planes :^)

see

Daily reminder that the corrupted elite is blatantly sacrificing your lives for their own gains, yet you still defend them. Grow some balls.

No wonder Obongo hands the keys to Internet censorship.

lol they don't get that high

Facts are not ayy lmao tier shit, bong!

Nor do i give a flying fuck what hillary "scared of a green frog" clinton thinks.

Shut up... Really

I saw the same comment earlier. Answer the following:

How does this account for free-fall and symmetry? Also, the lack of any significant/catastrophic impact from debris?
Furthermore, witnessing claimed to hear sounds of successive explosions near WTC 7 prior to collapse.

Please publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal because there's a few uncontested articles right now that go over all aspects of the collapse and conclude that it was a controlled demolition. Here's a chance to prove everyone wrong. Get published.

Ok, just because you play Flight Simulator X doesn't mean you know shit about jet engines, kurwa.

You don't have to educate me on engine temps or Brayton cycle, I want to know why you want to use the temp at the exhaust as some sort of indication.

Praise KEK. I wish you a nice morning coffee finbro and later a good hunt on reindeers.

So what did happen to wtc7?

How come these threads only started getting heavily posted and reposted in the last couple of weeks?
Also, a huge amount of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are Muslims who refuse to believe that their faith was responsible for the attack (and instead blame Jews/Bush/whatever).
Eat shit, my friend.

>temps get to 2000 degrees or more
you obviously need an education. max ive seen mine was 998 degrees celcius and that was at full retard power

insured, demolished, cashed out

Oh, but they do, in combustion chamber.
But just because I'm a fucking aerospace engineer means that I know my shit. I'm yet to meet a pilot who knows how his plane works.

There is even seismic activity showing explosions.

>my shitty aircraft with shitty engines can only get to 998 degrees at TIT, so it must mean that is the highest temperature at any point inside the engine.

maybe cuz 9/11 was just 10 days ago you smartass. Grow some balls mate and stop let them fuck you in your properly pronounced british arsehole.

>full retard power

>aerospace engineer
>polish
topkek, who do you work for? the russians? chinese? lawls

they don't get that hot. it would melt everything if it did. You play microsoft flight sim and think you know what you're talking about, when you don't

at no point has any of my TAT, ITT, or EGT probes gotten higher than 998 degrees celcius

armchair pilot, kys

heh

>shitty engines
TOPKEK, now i know you're an idiot. I've flown more powerful engines with a LOWER ITT

you're gay as fuck

You tell me! No one explains it. Center column collaps, yet no one knows. NIST does not know. Help us understand.

It's so Stupid and, As you say, You're an aerospace engineer, Embarrassing, to compare the Environments and Oxygen Compression ratios of the Turbine of a jet engine to a literal smoldering fire throwing black soot into the air.

The only tin-foil hat wearing lunatic is the britcuck who thinks that an army of shills paid for by the government infested a Chinese-little-girl-cartoon forum to shitpost incessantly about 9/11 in order to sway a bunch of autistic NEETs into believing it and making a board that has a reputation for crazy shit look crazy.

Really rational of you.

Ask the genius at how much celsius steel looses its full carring capaticety.

Ask him how far the top of wtc 1 and 2 where moving in the wind.

well obviously pilots are nothing more than busdrivers. Have you ever seen a busdriver who had a clue about anything other than operating his vehicle?
Regardless, Mr. Aerospace Engineer, I have an intriguing question for you. If Jetfuel gets that hot, why does the engine not melt??????

...

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

chief kief .gif

youtube.com/watch?v=YWyHZNBz6FE

Are you angry?

...

ty

It was 15 years ago. Your confused, illogical theories have been around for over a decade. But the posting only kicked into overdrive once the whole Clinton-Pepe-alt right-conspiracy theory shitshow started.

Sorry Abdul, not on my watch.

You don't even have to ask that question, Comparing a jet engine's internal combustion chamber to an Oxygen starved fire is autism: The post already.

I work for LM, for the record.
And your TAT, ITT and EGT sensors aren't even close to the hottest point in the combustion chamber.
cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/how.html
Here, first hit, saying about 1700 degrees entering the turbine vane.

>American related thread
>Is populated by a bunch of foreigners
Vote for trump he will make Cred Forums great again

No. Not at all. Gloating, actually!

>no visible or audible detonation
>inside job!!!

Thank you for Correcting The Record

But what about the routine bomb sniffing dogs? And nobody in a giant office building would notice anything suspicious after 8 years?

Of course it's retarded. But keep in mind that the buildings had ventillation and elevator shafts - the fire wasn't oxygen starved (though not even close enough to efficiency of a jet engine, you need PRESSURE for that).
He's an airline pilot, what can a fucking bus driver know about things like that?
Because the engine is cooled - the 2000 degrees I'm mentioning isn't near any solid part. Also, every part is being cooled by a thin film of cool air from the HPT, so the temperature "touching" the parts is significantly lower.
And yes, they're basically bus drivers, lol.

>polish
>Lockheed-Martin
hmmmm.... company that doesn't exist. interesting. I think you were looking for LOCKHEED, though.

Structural engineer here. Have any of you even looked at the NIST report? Let me break it down.

With the measured thickness of thermal protection they estimated maximum temperatures of 300C in the columns and 600C in the beams. At these temperatures steel maintains most of its strength and the damage was mainly caused by thermal expansion. Buildings rely on load being directly above columns (especially in seismically inactive regions like NYC). A small amount of eccentricity or skew dramatically reduces a column's compressive strength. WTC7 was a particularly long building, I think ~210 feet on the long axis, take that, 600C, and the thermal expansion coefficient of steel and you'll find 18 inches of expansion. This is exasperated by the fact that the moment frame connections used didn't allow for any expansion joints. It's not terribly surprising that this could cause a local collapse which propagates throughout the building. They suggest the interior was "gutted" then what we see in the videos is the exterior frame collapse. This is logical because exterior houses the lateral system (strong part that keeps the building up in hurricanes) and carries the least floor load. There's really nothing bizarre or conspiratorial about the WTC collapse, even if it was a first of its kind.

Simulation
youtube.com/watch?v=cn73PngylP8

Q&A
nist.gov/property-fieldsection/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Its ok to be mad

Ask them to stop existing, then.
lockheedmartin.com

You'll never get the 30-51:1 Compression Ratios out of a well ventilated Building m8 LMAO

Higher Compression Ratio= Higher Temperatures, this is basic shit for you man.

that's the old name from when they merged with martin-marietta, fag

Yes, that's what I implied. You're getting ambient pressure inside a ventilated building.

>Defunct 1995

>Implying fucktards on this board are not able to interpret information themselves.

When there is smoke there is fire. And after seeing what fucking Hilldawg was up to with her braindead rapist of a husband. I fucking had it with all those conspiracy theories, in fact, this rabbithole goes deeper than your english ass in your comfy english armchair eating mushrooms and tomatoes for breakfast could imagine or even accept without seriously doubting humanity itself.
There are some seriously fucked up individuals running the show and election 2016/17 is just the beginning of them being exposed.

How did the BBC know wtc 7 had fallen before it had?
That is very odd.

Wtc7 was not hit by a plane.

>airline pilot
>bus driver
TOPKEK. Now I know you're stupid if you literally think they're teh same thing. One requires to to operate 2 pedals and a door button on a flat surface

the other requires you to operate (pic related) in all directions.

TOP
FUCKING
KEK

>polish intellectuals
go clean my lav, fag.

T.Bergjude

Magic leaping fairy dust debris

Omfg!
BBC was behind this all along.

THAT MEANS YOURE OUT OF A JOB, BUCKO

Leap one building, flatten the next

No arguments from you thus far. Nothing but blatant denial of the evidence before you.

As for you...
"NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity."

Read the rest here:
www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

TL:DR:
NIST's report is bullshit.

Are you illiterate? Do you just copy paste that wherever you go ?

Fires were caused by debris from tower 1.

S E V E N S T O R Y H O L E

what part are you not getting about this?

Pilots this days have no controll or very few controlls to them self.

Planes ate flown by groundcontroll or autopilots.

A busdriver has more freedoms at how to drive then a pilot how to fly.

You also have 2 pedals and a wheel, from what I see, just a few more buttons.

But who's paying for the work I do?

the results looks pretty similiar to 22. july bombing in Norway, that was also fertilizer

...

SHART

>2 pedals
each pedal has 2 functions, so both would be 4 functions

topkek

keep going, perogie

>15 years since 9/11
>discussions are still jet fuel can't melt steel beams
Never change burgers

its just a bus for advanced busdrivers, with more buttons and lights and stuff. All you have to do is land and start, with tons of electronic assistance, and when ih the air just enable auto-pilot. Most people could do that with a little training.

It's actually three functions, rudder and left/right brakes.
Have you even flown a plane?

...

>2 pedals
>2 functions per pedal
can you count

IN

Rudder pedals are combined, brakes are separate.

>top section of left pedal brakes left MLG
>bottom seciton of left pedal deflects rudder left

>top section of right pedal brakes right MLF
>bottom section of right pedal deflects rudder right

k

"1 post by this ID"
Can't tell if shitposting or actually serious. There have been countless other arguments. You can go back and read them. Better yet, go read peer-reviewed scientific publications on the subject of WTC 7. They conclude that it was NIST's investigation was bullshit and a controlled demolition is consistent with all the evidence. I doubt you're going to do that though. You've probably got emus breaking in through your rear.

...

MART
You can deflect both left and right with just one foot, go ahead and try it sometime.

I'm off to bed, stuffed cabbage

A fucking American using Celsius.
Use Fahrenheit stinking leafer.

Go dream of being a bus driver, don't shit your pants, tho.

no, no you can't

lol armchair pilot. Go play more microsoft flight sim and then go take a discovery flight and try it

left rudder pedal and right rudder pedal.. that's what they're called

you have downs, but you are polish so I don't expect anything less, cabbage.

goodbye

why would anyone become aerospace engineer though and not pilot? As a pilot you have a changing team of hot stewardesses, and you are much more liked by the ladies

There you have it folks. Another thread with butthurt burger-sharts that can barely support the media/NIST's bullshit narrative all the while trying to ridicule the opposing side but without actually using arguments because that takes brain power and scientific understanding.

Your feet are too fat to do that? Lmao
Pays more, it's also much more interesting.

you truly are retarded, considering you're comparing the two.

you gonna go to an f-16 pilot and call him a bus driver?

>DURR ONE KILLS PEOPLE THE OTHER ONE CARRIES PEOPLE AROUND

you aren't a very good aerospace engineer if you think the flying of an airliner is somehow aerodynamically different than flying a fucking b52

topkek, stay stupid, eurotrash

All of this is subjective and not quantitative.

>Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them.
Why? The exterior is the strongest and least exposed to fire, it's expected to stand up better than the interior.

>(Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity."
It's difficult enough to model a static building, much less one in an earthquake (what I do), much less one COLLAPSING. You shouldn't expect their model to perfectly match reality. I hear the free falling argument a lot. I say this: why shouldn't it go in free fall? Steel and concrete have little inherent damping, I wouldn't expect them to act like playdoh

Here are some more angles of the collapse, you can see that there's actually a fair amount of lean. Inward motion is hard to judge at a distance.
youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

F-16 pilots need skills, reflex, knowledge, etc.
737 pilots need... what exactly? Turning a knob on AP is pretty easy desu.

Yes you can, push down the left pedal and the right one comes up, that's what the pollack meant.

>pays more
HAHA NO IT DOESNT. YOURE NOT MAKING CLOSE TO HALF A FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AS A POLISH WANNA BE AEROSPACE ENGINEER HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>feet are too fat?
yeah no there's not a huge control column in between your legs or anything. Besides, you said you can control both with one foot, meaning you thought you could deflect both right and left with the same pedal. Bleach is your friend.

Or just pull the right one.
See, even a fucking emu gets it. The ultimate proof that flying bus drivers aren't smarter than birds.

>control collumn
Are you a WWII pilot?

an airplane flies like an airplane flies like an airplane flies

it's the same aerodynamic principles, perogie. the more you talk, the more I know you're not an aerospace engineer

yes I'm 100. Yolk, better? semantics, what a fucking faggot lol that's your argument?

i was supposed to leave. goodbye! Sweet dreams of me shitting my pants you fucking queen ass fairy faggot topkek

Yeah, go dogfight in the 737 you mongoloid.

i thought you were off to bed? American Airlines Trainee Pilot who earns 60k a year.

You seem to know your shit, burger. Can't say the same for most people on this thread. Perhaps you will have the patience/curiosity/tenacity to read through this scientific article published in peer-review. If you do, be sure to publish a rebuttal because there are none so far. Or at least, take the time to refute everything you read there in a video or some other medium.

Link to article: europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Good luck

Here's the conclusion to the article I keep referencing for all you burgers that despise education and reading:

"Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities."

This is a good read, thanks. I would like to do something more formal to try to clear up some of the misinformation out there.

Still, I'm bothered that NIST won't release their model data. If there is a conspiracy, they did an excellent job of architecting a completely borderline collapse scenario. A strong argument the article makes for the inside job is the statistical unfathomability of 3 fire collapses from 3 different events on the same day.

youtu.be/kTxVIHBRJkw

Eye witness.

>europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Thank you for this reference. I always tread with uncertainty on this topic and generally lean toward the official story with the mind-state that a government such as the US would not be capable of committing such a tragedy on its own soil. It saddens me that this faith I once had is beginning to slip.

airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60625

2001 wtc thread

No because buildings don't fall down you toilet cleaning retard, buildings are built to stay up, they need to be demolished to fall down.

He paid 125 million for the building and has to date received more than 25 billion in insurance, plus his original 125 million, you utterly retarded nigger.

Probably controlled demolition after they saw the other two go down, and then full fuck me mode when they thought people will thing they did the same to the other two.

Jet feul melts steel memes xD