WOW SO PLANE WINGS CAN CUT THROUGH STEEL BEAMS LIKE BUTTER?

Bro they fell like a can of butter. We all saw it.

Attached: Bernie-Sanders-Greed.png (380x264, 49K)

Because the shield is dimensioned to absorb the impact of a bullet. It is its very purpose.

Skyscrapers are dimensioned to handle strong winds and earthquakes. They aren't dimensioned to withstand a Boeing 767 crashing into them.

>learning your physics from grand theft auto

OP is Albanian.

Can butter smell meme beams?

But the towers were designed for exactly that achmed

Now we're asking the real questions.

Attached: papa-john.jpg (1920x1080, 252K)

Worked in Star Wars 8.

Dank fuel can't melt jet memes

and yet the empire sate building had no problem withstanding a plane crash like many other buildings.

Both towels had critical beams destroyed. The remaining ones were subject to fire for several hours, drastically diminishing their strength.

It's a marvel of engineering the towers stood for as long as they did.

>OP IS ALBANIAN therefore this thread is meaningless i wouldn't worry about it
I wouldn't be surprised is this guy is a kike

Attached: wtcattac_twin_towers.jpg (1007x1893, 725K)

That plane crash did lot damage any critical beams, nor did it engulf the beams in fire lasting for hours.

Watch some taofledermaus videos, and keep in mind that an aircraft is going even faster than the silly shit they are shooting.
And it is a lot heavier.

Try to refute my argument. You can't since you're wrong. What happens when you move an object at an obscene amount of speed, and it impacts something?

F=ma=(mv^2)/2

BUTTER?!

Attached: 40562569_2264501490246529_2530948825086951424_n.jpg (960x960, 95K)

>(mv^2)/2
That's energy not force retard.

Well a butter slug would probably kill somebody if is loaded hot enough

Why was this deleted?

what a little bitch ass building 7 was. building 7 had an anxiety attack and collapsed without even being touched.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed...only changed from one form to butter.

Attached: Honeywell Temp Switch.png (927x541, 175K)

F refers to kinetic energy. I'm used to using F instead of E_k

>tries to look cool
>looks like an autist instead

Kill yourself

It was damaged by debris, caught fire. It burned for hours, and eventually a critical supporting column collapsed, bringing the building down.

WOW SO PIT BALLS CAN CUT THROUGH SMALL CHILDREN LIKE BUTTER?

WHY INSTEAD OF WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON CONTRACEPTIVES WE USE IT ON PIT BALLS ITS MORE EFFECTIVE

Kek

ma = force
(mv^2)/2 = energy
force != energy

Oh baby.

Attached: altec2Black.png (698x234, 12K)

Amongst the first things they teach us in engineering is how dangerous fires can be. Steel has the same qualities as jelly putty if you expose it to fire for too long.

Attached: 502.jpg (612x612, 48K)

You're correct, I messed that equation up.

Attached: b.png (736x552, 433K)

where was the air force?
why did building 7 crashed?
how come they found the terrorists pasport's but couldn't find the blackbox?
why did the plane that hit the pentagon left such low damage and almost no debris?
there's just to much happy accidents you can refute single points as long as you but the whole thing stinks.

Enver Hoxha deleted it himself.

only buildings to ever collapse from fire. next?

Attached: madrid1.jpg (600x800, 125K)

not buildings...skyscapers... my bad. houses and buildings collapse all the fucking time.

Attached: 571dace244b85f0dc82ca8bbe6bec25f9608d35f02814a14eda9962d25086534.png (658x901, 64K)

what's more concerning is the shanksville,PA crash.
in any major airplane crash where you have hundreds of dead bodies, the carnage is extremely apparent
however there was no blood or body parts anywhere near the "crash" of flight 93.

Attached: b.png (299x164, 101K)

If the Earth is a globe and it’s core is made of metal then why hasn’t it collapsed from all the heat underground?

Check mate.

What fire? People were standing in the hole left by the plane looking out. After the fuel was gone in the fireball, there was only ordinary office materials

There are many different factors involved as to if the building will withstand the fire or not.

Construction standards necessitate using isolating materials to cover the steel beams etc. You can see in the picture that some beams have collapsed, and the upper part of the building too. However, the critical supporting beams held firm, thus the building did so too.

Knock out some of the critical beams, douse the rest in jet fuel, let it burn for hours, and I can tell you the building will collapse.

What happened to the guys arrested on the bridge planting bombs? why did we immediately ship all the debris to China to be destroyed? Why do all interviews with firefighters/first responders describe explosions coming from the bottom? why did the pentagon confiscate every tape of surveillance from the surrounding areas and never release them? Also this: Dick Cheney – Vice President; testimony not under oath. The session was not officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" in which highly classified information would be discussed. Testimony took place in the Oval Office.

Attached: 1f392e65246e0696f8e19acaf5f04e8239aa07f393c802d87812b07b32c172da.jpg (620x827, 85K)

Smashing a plane nose-first at 600 km/h turns everyone inside into pieces I reckon.

First of all yes there were, second of all most planes are trying to attempt a landing not fucking going straight into the ground

Attached: conspiracy_news2.gif (700x352, 8K)

The only building in history to ever do so, mind you. Why didnt this come tumbling down?

Attached: 1200px-Grenfell_Tower_fire_(wider_view).jpg (1200x900, 202K)

well that building wasn't hit by a plane for starters

You all sound like retards...Even if any of you knew the truth about what really happened, what the fuck would you do about it?

Literally nothing.

Empire state building had a plane crash too

Well, its all about the energy. If you have a whole Boeing with 200 (?) tons of weight and accelerate it to 900km/h the kybernetic is incredible. It is even a wonder that the top of the towers did not just break off straight after the impact. Imo its just due to good american engineering that the towers didnt break into 2 halves immediatly.

A plane has next to no mass compared with a re-enforced concrete structure. Aluminum is very light. Most of the plane is empty space

yeah wtf fucking retards why should you ever question the narrative just send your children to die for zog fucking retards.
there's a new episode of game of thrones tomorrow and you waste your time on this shit

Unironically believing 9/11 wasnt a false flag

And what temp do office materials burn at vs. steel weakening?

They weren't even planning on doing a congressional investigation until the Jersey moms pitched a temper tantrum

Also, why was the Saudi royal family given an exception to the no fly order?

I can't definetely answer that because I don't have the blueprints for that building.

Buildings aren't all alike. They follow different regulations in different countries. Due to the way they're built, some are more resilient to fire than others. But one key praxis is that a building should be able to withstand fire (for a given time) without any of it critical supports failing.

Grenfell didn't collapse because it didn't have a Boeing 767 crashing into it. Big plane takes out critical beams. Critical beams are needed to support the building. See the logic?

Half you fags were not even old enough to properly remember the event.

The plane destroyed several critical portions of the towers. The fires don't need to melt the steel beams, merely weaken the existing ones.

Had the fires been put out somehow, the building would likely have collapsed in a few day-is anyway (my guess, seeing how critical beams had been cut).

>Big plane takes out critical beams
Planes don't have enough mass to do this

Google image "bird plane strike"

Planes get fucked by fucking birds, let alone re-enforced concrete.

Next google image the plane impact site with a scale sized plane silhouette over the site. You can see that the tips of the wings were too weak to even penetrate the outside of the building

Even if your theory were true, the building would have buckled at the point of impact, instead of coming down like a stack of pancakes (as is seen in controlled demolition)

And, your theory doesn't explain how thousands and thousands of tons of cement pulverized into thin dust midair. If the building failed due to a support failure, it would have come down in giant pieces.

even under those pretenses only the top would fall off....and unevenly at that, which would've killed and damaged even more. You are correct that the supporting structure would have to be compromised. I was told a while ago about the "true story". They found out, during the '93 bombing, the terrorists were attempting get the WTC to domino. And they would have, had the driver not gotten confused on the way down the winding garage. Thusly parking in the wrong spot. Which averted causing tens of thousands of deaths and trillions in damages. So what do you do to prevent for when, not if, they try again? Why did the repairs take months? Planting explosives in the structure as a self-destruct button to avoid said "worse-case" scenario. And when they said pull it... they meant it. The possibility of another attack was extremely strong. What do you do? 100,000 deaths or 5,000 deaths...or wait and see what someone else decides? The recent realization of the amount of commies and islammies in our govt makes me seriously consider that we truly got caught with our pants down on the shitter. It only takes a few people to; give out when we were having our training drills, get a visa, fabricate a passport to push a narrative. And during said chaos, many other factions can hide, steal, and destroy alot of evidence and blame it on 'terrorists'.

Attached: 1M6EKxg.png (336x482, 83K)

You had a double whammy of the remaining beams having to support more weight, while their strength were diminished by the heat.

Attached: temperature-strength-metals-SI.png (687x386, 63K)

>strength were diminished by the heat.
There was no heat after the fireball burned the rest of the fuel. There is an image of a woman standing in the hole left by the plane waving

KEK! seriously...like we're ever going to get to know what actually happened that day. Oh man...please Trump. Do it today. Just release all that shit. or just a tweet of a different angle and slow-mo of the pentagon footage. If plane, get praised for finally silencing that question. If missile, attention immediately goes to Bush admin and Obama admin for covering it up.

Attached: 68838b6cdd0d546dd4344fd52a2ee85b373cefc9857f66b128d52881d2311518.gif (233x533, 22K)

911 technical analysis proves absolutely nothing. that's why they love to talk about buildings and fires.

Attached: 764345.jpg (237x213, 14K)

except it doesn't in all other such crashes in history

so we can plant trackers and see where they scurry to, or to protect valuable assets from immediate retribution from lone/state actors (deserved or not)?

Attached: 1515400718439.jpg (316x400, 18K)

Attached: b.png (236x220, 145K)

E=m*c2 you fucking retard
>2
2
>2
2

In this case it's not the velocity, it really is the mass. The mass of a full tank of 160,000 pounds of incompressible liquid fuel behind the admittedly thin aluminum shell. Can that break a steel beam at 500 mph? It's not surprising.

Attached: b.png (657x280, 18K)

Speaking of velocity, how did retarded inbred sandniggers with minimal training and experience hit a building not much wider than the plane at 500 miles an hour?

You conspiracy theory retards need to leave Jow Forums you make us all look bad

Attached: 1531951824848.jpg (540x592, 110K)

"Unquestionably accepting the narrative from the proper authorities is the pol way."

Whole event was media illusion, kikes are pretty good making movies people.

Where is the ban on fridges in tower blocks?

Perhaps it was something IN the fridge .. a highly flammable liquid for example.

Acetone - as used in the manufacture of explosives - as used in the Ariana Grande atrocity?

He asked for the temps office materials burn at vs temp requirements for steel weakening. Respond to this specific inquiry pls.

if you heat up a piece of metal it looses strength of all kinds - PERIOD

that said i laughed my fuckin ass off when tower 7 fell how obvious can the shit get before we rise the fuck up

You are not swedeposter, I would like him to list temperature of various office materials burning, then I could convert his graph of weakening metals into burger temps and compare them myself.

if you insert energy into a material it becomes more plyable what more do you hope to prove?

>If the building failed due to a support failure, it would have come down in giant pieces
It did come down in huge pieces. Your entire argument is trash.

Attached: WTC-collapse.jpg (960x632, 349K)

I want this question answered by swede, he only answered half of it so far.
>what temp do office materials burn at vs. steel weakening?

Get a big enough bullet and it will. It's a 747, not a Cesna. That's like 9mm vs 7.62 NATO hitting that shield.

Time to go ask Jow Forums.
>How do we weaponize butter?
Then wait for King Harlaus spam.

i used to thinnk the buildings should have come down at an angle, you can tellin the footage they wanted too but the lower section of the building simply couldnt support a corner or edge for long enough to tilt the entire top of the falling structure, it came straight down because nothing could provide enough resistance at any point to make it angle to one side or the other

9/11 was mossad job but physics still apply

It's called kinetic energy bro. Rail gun rounds have no explosives.

I'm stealing this.

Attached: 1530852969502.jpg (300x300, 8K)

you’re arguing with a swede. arguably the most brainwashed/kiked population on the planet. give up leaf

when you think about it, the bodies on the plane probaby provided significant mass in the collision, meaning a person can bend steel beams if they try fast enough

it would if the mass was great enough.