an inconvenient truth. . Fire and heat Fire and heat New ‘fork . , I Building new - ii: jlt . Madrid gir at HIGHS What do you think that fire and heat do with a
x
Click to expand

Comments(1644):

[ 1644 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#29 - TehBlackfire (09/11/2012) [-]
I always though they fell because they got ******* hit by a damn airplane...
#878 to #29 - John Cena (09/11/2012) [-]
Except that the building was designed to be able to withstand 7 such collisions.

Engineering is a lot more advanced than the government wants you to believe.
User avatar #1193 to #878 - shayyman (09/11/2012) [-]
And the titanic was supposed to be unsinkable, or is that a conspiracy too
User avatar #1721 to #1193 - deathstare (09/12/2012) [-]
Funny you should mention it:
http://library.thinkquest.org/18626/SSwitch.html
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197417

In case the link fails. There is a theory surrounding the switching of the newly built RMS Titanic "The Unsinkable" and RMS Olympic "Old Reliable" (a Vessel nearing it's time)

The idea was that the Olympic docked for repairs beside the Titanic. They switched the parts around and changed the nameplate and sent them off. The Titanic (formerly Olympic) sunk later on, and the Olympic is still rumored to be in use (even though it was publicly retired)

So, to answer your question, yes it it a conspiracy theory.
User avatar #1719 to #1193 - rainbowrush ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Well, if they hadn't ****** up the engine, it wouldn't have sunken.
User avatar #547 to #29 - willpowerz (09/11/2012) [-]
The building was actually made to handle a hit from a large airplane. and no building made with a steal frame has ever been recorded to have falen from fire. And jet fuel burns a good 600 degrees lower than the melting point of steal. PLUS the steal on the twin towers was coated in fire resistant materials to prevent a fire from doing what was already considered impossible.
#848 to #547 - John Cena (09/11/2012) [-]
The building was made to withstand a 737. Not a 747. Big difference.

Also, the fires did not melt the beams, but weakened them enough to cause the collapse.

Plus, the building was already damaged.

Sure, if you keep the two separate, it doesn't work out as well, but you have to account for both of them, not individually.
#1764 to #848 - willpowerz (09/12/2012) [-]
I must say that is an interesting way to look at it. I'm posting two pictures to try and support my point. the left is a real picture from ground 0 where you can see a main support beam is cut, and clearly melted. This is a common method used in controlled demolitions of large city buildings so they they fall in on themselves and don't hurt surrounding areas. the basic concept for that is the picture on the right.

Also you have -1 thumb.. not cool I'll get you back to zero
#634 to #547 - rshctwo (09/11/2012) [-]
but the problem with that fire resistant stuff that they used on those buildings was that it was only sprayed on and then it was blown off by the explosion of the planes(we went over this in one of my classes a couple of weeks ago)
User avatar #793 to #634 - willpowerz (09/11/2012) [-]
But even if that did happen, like I said before, jet fuel burns 600 degrees less than the temperature that steal melts at.
#1474 to #793 - rshctwo (09/12/2012) [-]
even the steel that was used 40 years ago? I dont know the difference in melting points between the two but i have a feeling that it couldve contributed
#900 to #29 - John Cena (09/11/2012) [-]
500,000 ton building was hit by a plane that weights ~210 ton. That's 0.042%.
User avatar #1119 to #900 - russianapathy (09/11/2012) [-]
a .50 BMG (42g) can kill a 180 pound man. That's .0511111...%
#1695 to #763 - iamphoenix (09/12/2012) [-]
The National Institute of Standards and Technology disagrees with you.

www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
#1698 to #1695 - selfdenyingbeggar (09/12/2012) [-]
that's a government site. do you really believe that if they had found irregularities they would've been posted there?
#1707 to #1698 - iamphoenix (09/12/2012) [-]
They give a pretty detailed explanation using solid concepts from science and engineering. I trust them over '9/11 truthers'.
#1710 to #1707 - selfdenyingbeggar (09/12/2012) [-]
It's not me who's saying that I've found irregularities and I know the truth. A lot of people have spoken of those irregularities, including members of the original comitte to determine what happened. Also, you can see thew way they've milked what happened to stblish more and more regulations that are against the constitution and the failed "war on terror".
#51 - SimianLich (09/11/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure a 747 Jet crashing into the side of the WTC might have made it structurally unstable. Jackass.
#354 - therulethirtyfour (09/11/2012) [-]
You seem to be forgetting some things:

#1 A ******* PLANE HIT THE GODDAMNED BUILDING. This would weaken the internal structure of the building. Which means that the building is less secure, and a fire can wreak more havoc in it than a more secure structure.

#2. Jet fuel burns a hell of a lot hotter than your basic fire that you would find. Like, A LOT hotter. Combine this fact with the first one and you can see why a structurally weak building might have a snowballs chance in hell against a jet fuel fire as opposed to a fire spread by office furniture and drywall.

#3. Part of the Windsor Tower collapsed due to the fire.

#4. Taller buildings are fundamentally less stable than shorter buildings. They become more top-heavy and the higher you go the risk of having a frail infrastructure rises exponentially.

Next time you want to hit me with an "inconvenient truth," make sure the "truth" part doesn't get left out.
User avatar #367 to #354 - billymaize (09/11/2012) [-]
So explain the pools of molten iron (product of thermite reaction) found at the site which remained too hot for workers to go near for days after the fact?
User avatar #378 to #367 - whipptron (09/11/2012) [-]
Iron melts at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit.
fires can get that hot believe it or not.
User avatar #883 to #378 - billymaize (09/11/2012) [-]
i'm not asking at what temperature does iron melt. why was it there? last time i checked the supports weren't made of iron. thermite, however, does produce iron.
User avatar #1739 to #883 - whipptron (09/12/2012) [-]
steel is mostly iron. which *is* what the building was made of
User avatar #1016 to #883 - benk (09/11/2012) [-]
i have no way to back this up, this is just speculation (but then so is urs) but thermite is a mixture of iron and aluminum. a building is made of steel, which has iron and a plane is made of aluminum so it could have combined under the extreme heat and pressure of the fire to make thermite.

however this is a moot point becuse there is no reliable documentation of thermite at the wtc
#362 to #354 - bible (09/11/2012) [-]
ahahahahha, Oh man.    
   
Get some.
ahahahahha, Oh man.

Get some.
User avatar #697 to #354 - mcdonaldscupinc (09/11/2012) [-]
1. Was built to withstand a hit from a plane anywhere on the building.

2. Jet fuel burn at 500-599 F, steel is soft at 1000F and smelts at 2500F
User avatar #1004 to #697 - benk (09/11/2012) [-]
600°F is the open air burning temperature of jet fuel but in a confined space it can burn much much hotter. The steel in a building is under stress under normal conditions this is fine. However when struck by a plane some of the building would be destroyed. this would increase the stress on the remainder of the steel structure, combine this with the fact that its burning at well over 600 degrees the rest of the steel structure would give out.
#358 to #354 - therulethirtyfour (09/11/2012) [-]
To clarify my last point, the Windsor Tower was only 32 stories. The twin towers were each 110 stories, almost 4x the number of stories the Windsor had.

Also, to add another point,

#5. The fires in the twin towers were caused by an explosion, not by arson or an electrical fire (I don't remember how Windsor's fire was started, but I know it wasn't because a damn plane blew up in the side of it). An explosion would further weaken the infrastructure and spread the (jet fuel) fire much more quickly than the Windsor's.
User avatar #365 to #358 - SebyMeister (09/11/2012) [-]
Lets say you are right..But you are telling me that US, the world super-power at that time has been so fragile to some goatkeepers who hijacked some planes? You really think that New York's air defenses were so weak that anybody could crush some ******* planes into the biggest buildings? Seriously?
User avatar #384 to #365 - sodaberg (09/11/2012) [-]
New York doesn't have an air defense network, it's a city like any other, not a freaking starcraft 2 base
User avatar #389 to #384 - SebyMeister (09/11/2012) [-]
Let me prove you otherwise
On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established automatic procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied.
User avatar #390 to #389 - sodaberg (09/11/2012) [-]
[citation needed]
User avatar #398 to #389 - HarvietheDinkle (09/11/2012) [-]
So you're telling me that they should have expected the planes to be deliberately flying into the towers?

No. That was an unprecedented occurance that they did not prepare for. Also, were they prepared to shoot down two commercial planes filled with people?

You have to put the human factor into this, not just pure mechanics.
User avatar #531 to #389 - mrfuji (09/11/2012) [-]
The reason why the jets were not scrambled fast enough was because the plane was not found to be suspicious by ATC until it was *far* too late to scramble anything. You do realize that most jets of that size travel at a speed of about or more than 200 knots. These planes were going ******* fast.
#373 to #365 - therulethirtyfour (09/11/2012) [-]
#1. My argument was simply against the claim that the fires inside the twin towers wouldn't have caused the damage that they did in comparison to the Windsor Tower's fire. It had nothing to do with who actually caused the plane crash, or any "inside job"/planning that may or may not have occurred. You're changing the argument away from mine originally.   
   
But if you want to go down this road...   
   
#2. Have you ever worked with government employees/politicians? They're so incompetent that I'm surprised when they're dressed properly and they wipe their own asses without screwing it up. The US government has seriously 			******		 up major operations (Bay of Pigs invasion, the whole Vietnam War) and can't 			*******		 pave the road outside of my house; I doubt that the government could have orchestrated 2 flawless, 1 flawed, and 1 failed internal attacks on itself for war-mongering ideals without seriously screwing up.   
   
#3. With all of the leaks in the government lately, don't you think that this thing would have been blown wide open from the inside-out already?   
   
Don't get me wrong; I think that it's entirely possible that it may have been planned. But does not mean I think it was, nor does it mean I think they're capable of doing it.
#1. My argument was simply against the claim that the fires inside the twin towers wouldn't have caused the damage that they did in comparison to the Windsor Tower's fire. It had nothing to do with who actually caused the plane crash, or any "inside job"/planning that may or may not have occurred. You're changing the argument away from mine originally.

But if you want to go down this road...

#2. Have you ever worked with government employees/politicians? They're so incompetent that I'm surprised when they're dressed properly and they wipe their own asses without screwing it up. The US government has seriously ****** up major operations (Bay of Pigs invasion, the whole Vietnam War) and can't ******* pave the road outside of my house; I doubt that the government could have orchestrated 2 flawless, 1 flawed, and 1 failed internal attacks on itself for war-mongering ideals without seriously screwing up.

#3. With all of the leaks in the government lately, don't you think that this thing would have been blown wide open from the inside-out already?

Don't get me wrong; I think that it's entirely possible that it may have been planned. But does not mean I think it was, nor does it mean I think they're capable of doing it.
User avatar #387 to #373 - SebyMeister (09/11/2012) [-]
I'm not stating either that Irak terrorists did it and US allowed it nor US didn't really knew about this and terrorists smartly penetrated the defenses..but..piloting that kind of planes requires years of training with simulators..(we can't state that they were amateurs..really..it take skills to fly into a specified target)..Simulators and training technology that ''terrorists" from Arabian countries don't have access..But lets say they had, and focus on the purpose..Why? Why piss off US, the world-super power by destroying some towers? What the hell they followed to accomplish? Why taking the rage of a Super-Power on you when you are poor, weak (with huge oil reserves) country? If they knew it was so easy to penetrate the air defenses..why not bombing the entire New York? Why just limit yourself to some buildings..As a terrorists, you supposed to be evil, to have unlimited thirst for anarchy.. Take this as an example: I, a mere human, see a damn lion nearby..and I have a genius idea..I want to stick a piece of wood in his ass..and I succeed..I feel proud of my action..but wait..the lion is not dead..is super pissed and took his full anger upon me..and now I wait to get mutilated/killed..Does it make sense to you? Because all the 9/11 events does not make sense to me either..
#301 - barehype (09/11/2012) [-]
Yes, however the Windsor Tower didn't have a ******* plane crash into it.
User avatar #355 - whycanticaps (09/11/2012) [-]
cept, you know, A ******* PLANE NAILED THE TOWERS. wasn't just fire.
User avatar #1207 - darthblam (09/12/2012) [-]
Wait.. so.. having a PLANE collide and cause structural damage isn't a factor?
User avatar #1215 to #1207 - angreif (09/12/2012) [-]
my thoughts exactly
User avatar #1227 to #1207 - spektre (09/12/2012) [-]
Not to mention the Windsor building was only 29 stories tall as compared to the 110 stories that each tower was. That coupled with the heat and structural support that was compromised in the initial impacts is what made the towers fall.
#1062 - MrFish (09/11/2012) [-]
you make a valid point
however you left out the part were THE ******* PLANE crashed into the WTC
#1087 to #1062 - nelsonbeardly (09/11/2012) [-]
THANK YOU! someone gets it.
User avatar #1035 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I am studying to become a civil engineer so listen up you retard. The building in madrid did not have a plane crash into it, causing major damage even before the fire. When the plane crashed, jet fuel leaked down and started fires as well as the original fireball that shot through the building via the elevator shafts, causing major damage to the buildings supports. The jet fuel, fueled hotter fires than that of the Madrid building. The WTC had older fire fighting technology than the Madrid building. The WTC was also under more stress from the extra weight of other floors. The buildings used a tube support system which was only on the perimeter and core of the building, it had no extra support columns on the floors unlike the building in madrid which is why the madrid building survived. The WTC lacked modern insolation and it was being upgraded but at the time of the crash, only levels up to 18 had been fire-proofed. I also love how you leave out the fact that the building survived a major truck bomb (1,500 pounds of explosives) in the basement of it or the 1975 fire in the north tower that ravaged several floors of the building. Before you post retarded counter-arguments OP, know that you are getting yourself into.
User avatar #1045 to #1035 - SiegK (09/11/2012) [-]
true that
#1083 to #1035 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
explain this building falling into itself completely with no resistence
User avatar #1130 to #1083 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
*Sigh* Here you go ******** .

http://www youtube com/watch?v=kSq663m0G8&list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B&index=9&feature=plppvideo
User avatar #1141 to #1130 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
DISABLED COMMENTS WITH 2,400 DISLIKES ? LOL WATCH THIS www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg THIS IS UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE!
#1148 to #1141 - zaw (09/11/2012) [-]
You're trying to be serious about a conspiracy...on FunnyJunk? You have better chances of making a dent by doing to a preschool.
User avatar #1151 to #1141 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
A bunch of dislikes by retards like you who didn't even watch it. Don't pretend you did because I just finished after I sent you that comment. Go **** yourself truther cock sucker.
User avatar #1136 to #1083 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
It was damaged after debris from the collapsing towers struck it. This sparked fires which raged for several hours until the heat eventually got through the insolation and collapsed the structure. Why did this happen to begin with, the buildings fire sprinkler system was not automatic and rather a single point system with a lot of potential for breaks in the system caused by damage from the collapsing towers, which is what happened. The FDNY was actually making significant progress in putting the fires out until they heard creaking and saw cracks appear along the building, indicating a large potential for collapse. They stopped fire fighting and evacuating fearing an imminent collapse. The falling debris had damaged a section of the building. This caused an extra load to be put on the other supports. After being severly weakened by fire, it eventually collapsed.
User avatar #1152 to #1136 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Do you find this plausible?
#1157 to #1152 - DagothUr (09/11/2012) [-]
You confuse me.

<--- You post this picture which is supposed to take attention away from 9/11.

But you concentrate your efforts on the issue of 9/11 in this comment section.
#1175 to #1157 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I do not support the war at all. I wrote an entire essay about it, Here: enjoy
User avatar #1166 to #1157 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
i believe the 2 milluion innocent iraqis that have died because of this war need to be remembered too, and why did they get murdered ? because of greed, the amrican government was CLEARLY involved
User avatar #1182 to #1166 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
read above replies
User avatar #1163 to #1152 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I do not agree with this, it just needed enough bearings to collapse. Then eventually the extra load would be to much for the building to hold and in would collapse. This is what is known as a progressive collapse.
#1224 to #1035 - wetpantslol (09/12/2012) [-]
He is right you know!
User avatar #1069 to #1035 - bigshaft (09/11/2012) [-]
you must have a true mental problem..Over 1700 architects & engineers are finally coming forward demanding a new investigation for 9/11 if you disagree watch this video I PROMISE you will find the truth out www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
User avatar #1074 to #1069 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
Dear god another one. Heres my video responce: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g
User avatar #1072 to #1035 - jittersfj (09/11/2012) [-]
You're the man bro. You are the man. I have watched Why the Towers Fell and have watched videos of real qualified engineers showing how the truthers give only minute details and I love when people like you come in and shut them the **** down. Again, thank you.
User avatar #1099 to #1072 - outerspacebar (09/11/2012) [-]
I am honestly just a Junior in Public High School in Brooklyn, ny. lol. I am not an engineer. i plan on becoming a civil engineer though and studying at buffalo university. I am always fascinated with structural failures and naturally I have done a bit of research on the WTC as well as the Titanic, Galloping Gertie, The I-35 Bridge collapse, and the Hindenburg disaster
User avatar #1060 to #1035 - futachiblue (09/11/2012) [-]
I like how I learned this today at school just so I could actually facepalm at the **** that was posted up there.
User avatar #1061 to #1060 - futachiblue (09/11/2012) [-]
Not meant for you btw, I meant about the post. asdgf
#343 - MeTheHe (09/11/2012) [-]
you seem to be ignoring the fact that those planes were full of jet fuel.    
jet fuel burns at a heat of 980 deg. Celsius   
steel becomes very soft and malleable at only 702.5 deg. Celsius   
   
mfw people believe anything they're told and are either too lazy or too stupid to check their facts.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that those planes were full of jet fuel.
jet fuel burns at a heat of 980 deg. Celsius
steel becomes very soft and malleable at only 702.5 deg. Celsius

mfw people believe anything they're told and are either too lazy or too stupid to check their facts.
User avatar #371 to #343 - SebyMeister (09/11/2012) [-]
Like you for example?You are telling me that US, the world super-power at that time has been so fragile to some arabic goatkeepers who hijacked some planes? You really think that New York's air defenses were so weak that anybody could crush ******* planes into the biggest buildings? Seriously?
User avatar #1750 to #371 - MeTheHe (09/12/2012) [-]
We don't have fighter planes patrolling New York City. That would be a waist of money and resources. And what air defenses are you referring to? Do you think we have AA guns set up everywhere or something? At the time our security was very lax in airports compared to today. The things that happened 11 years ago would be not be able to happen today. At least not the same way. If a plane goes to far off a predetermined flight path today people are alerted. Back then it wasn't as monitored. No one had ever hijacked and plane and tried crashing it into a building before.
+14
#1453 - decibel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1075 - gammajk (09/11/2012) [-]
>a ship crashes into an iceberg and doesn't sink
>the titanic crashes into an iceberg and sinks
OMFG CONSPIRACY CLEARLY THE GOVERNMENT PLANTED BOMBS IN THE TITANIC SO THEY CAN FULFIL THEIR ZIONIST ILLUMINATI JEW MUSLIM TERRORIST PLOT

But no, seriously, you're a moron.
User avatar #1123 to #1075 - ScruffytheJanitor (09/11/2012) [-]
I KNEW THE JEWS DID THIS!
User avatar #1194 to #1075 - wetpantslol (09/11/2012) [-]
*Mormon
#1082 to #1075 - derpanator (09/11/2012) [-]
HOLY **** I THINK YOUR ON TO SOMETHING
User avatar #1104 to #1075 - vanoreo (09/11/2012) [-]
Not exactly equal to the post. The post went more like:
>A ship doesn't crash into an iceberg and doesn't sink.
>The Titanic crashes into an iceberg and sinks.
#824 - swuamelturd (09/11/2012) [-]
yep.
User avatar #825 to #824 - faxanadu (09/11/2012) [-]
maybe ur moms dicks
User avatar #830 to #825 - swuamelturd (09/11/2012) [-]
you mad?
User avatar #834 to #830 - faxanadu (09/11/2012) [-]
im not mad u ******* retard go kill yourself
User avatar #846 to #842 - faxanadu (09/11/2012) [-]
IM NOT ******* MAD GTFO
0
#857 to #834 - swuamelturd has deleted their comment [-]
#901 to #825 - defender (09/11/2012) [-]
it must take talent to suck dick and post retarded content at the same time
User avatar #877 to #824 - Kabutops (09/11/2012) [-]
newspaper is fake. If OP is too busy sucking dick, then how can he say that he cannot stop sucking dicks if he has several in his mouth already?
User avatar #908 to #877 - swuamelturd (09/11/2012) [-]
He probably wrote it down on a piece of paper or something while being interviewed.
#356 - John Cena (09/11/2012) [-]
Hi, im a graduating civil engineer, and if you thumbed this picture up you are a prime example of why people with no idea of a subject should not form opinions.
#155 - niggerlips (09/11/2012) [-]
you fools! this is what really happened
User avatar #1458 - sailorstarsun (09/12/2012) [-]
I have a feeling - and this is just a theory - that the WTC fell because it was hit by a plane.
#1530 to #1458 - roneffinswanson (09/12/2012) [-]
What do you mean? It was a bunch of pissed off muslims.
#1475 to #1458 - reyesman (09/12/2012) [-]
That's an Interesting theory you got there. I had a similar Idea myself.
That's an Interesting theory you got there. I had a similar Idea myself.
#1338 - keiishiyama (09/12/2012) [-]
There's no hidden meaning, OP. The Windsor fire was just that: a FIRE, fueled by idiocy and paper.

The Twin Towers were both hit by PLANES, and JET FUEL ignited. I hope you realize that, at that time, steel was either liquified or was softened like butter. Butter does not make for a good building skeleton.

How about, instead of spouting ******** , you look at the facts you claim to be falsified?
#1291 - Lintutu (09/12/2012) [-]
that...annnnnnnnnnnd a plane buttraped the side of the building...
User avatar #992 - dickynix (09/11/2012) [-]
Everyone knows George Bush cloned him self 4 times and then each of his clones hijacked the planes and flew them. The fourth clone was incomplete however resulting in incompetence and the inability to fly a plane. By doing this he then could go to Afghanistan to get unobtanium to fuel his ranch in texas forever. If you don't believe me then you are ******* retard drinking government koolaid free your minds.
0
#1047 to #992 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1560 to #992 - koolaid (09/12/2012) [-]
If I get one more notification from someone saying "drinking the government koolaid" I swear to god... hahaha
#460 - sonsofsol (09/11/2012) [-]
Just a quick note. Nobody but nobody designs s building to get hit by a 			*************		 PLANE!
Just a quick note. Nobody but nobody designs s building to get hit by a ************* PLANE!
User avatar #694 to #460 - mcdonaldscupinc (09/11/2012) [-]
The engineers behind WTC 1 and 2 did. Imagine that
User avatar #536 - Sockopolis (09/11/2012) [-]
A high speed, huge jet airliner crashed into the WTC. That had to do some structural damage. And the Windsor building has a much more sturdy base than a ******* rectangular skyscraper.
Plane hits building - Structure damaged - 1000 degree jet fuel fires started - already damaged structure warps and bends under heat - building falls.
+4
#540 to #536 - linkDrkguy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
[ 1644 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)