Message from @The Gwench
Discord ID: 547919180083757056
rofl
***Question Of The Day #8***
Was 911 an inside job?
Share your thoughts here in the <#484514023698726912>
9/11 was almost certainly not an inside job, simply because it was so poorly executed. It's nearly impossible to tell whether or not a tower struck by a plane will collapse, because of the complex factors at play in the structure of the building. What caused the collapse wasn't the plane crash, but rather, the resulting fire.
The other thing is that after the previous attack (bomb under the towers), there were detailed structural analyses of the towers, so if 9/11 were an inside job, the government would have gone for a plan with a higher chance of success.
@gohan What do you mean, a higher chance of success. It was a success.
I should rephrase.
They would have gone for a plan that was certain to work.
Building 7 speaks for itself...
When you can manipulate what the masses see you've already won
Lord Aizen levels
911 was a job... inside outside, it was terrror, i guess most inside the buildings had nothing to do with the attacks at the time it happened, so i think it was more a government job, you know, diverting planes , not having the airspace secured after the first tower was hit, letting the president read his favorite book upside down in a classroom well known visit... the stand down order kept in place deliberately, the family of the supossed perpatrator was allowed to fly when no plane was allowed to fly ... there is so much that screams government job.
the alleged master mind was a CIA man "aka tim osman" the death of the alleged mastermind was filmed and viewed allegedly, but no one out side the need to know basis ever saw the footage, and the guys who allegedly did the killing were killed in a heli crash that had all the marks of a setup, as they were transported in the wrong type helicopter in the wrong area for an obvious ambush.
twin towers were build to catch atleast a 707, which was the biggest plane at the time the buildings were "erected" and still bigger than the planes that actually are said to have been flown into them.... and even that is lacking serious proof. and about proof, did you know passports would be better building materials than the stuff they made the twin towers from and building 7 ?
@gohan It’s obvious you haven’t done your research.
Research the temps needed for steel to melt.
And you, Gwench, research the temperature needed for steel to soften.
The steel didn't have to melt, it just had to soften, deform, and physics takes care of the rest.
It was you that said it was the fire that caused the steel to weaken. Now back it up with some sauce bud.
Alright.
I want to know the temp needed for steel to soften. I want to know the max temp of an office building fire with jet fuel.
And I'll give it to you
No need to be pushy, you know I'm thorough
I know you will. 😃
Alright, so first question is, have you ever seen the aftermath of a building fire?
Not a house fire, but like, a commercial one
Yes
Have you noticed how there's no puddles of hardened steel?
No melted steel bars, but a lot of warped and twisted steel bars
You mean like this?
I meant a collapsed building, but you can see warped steel there, so I suppose
This tells us that a building can collapse if the steel structure loses its integrity.
Actually, the steel looks fine.
The rest of the building materials don’t.
Lower right
The carbon content of the steel matters as well
Does this look like a building that collapsed from softened steel? All 4 corners collapsing at the same time?
But I'm getting there
The World Trade Center towers used A36 steel, with a 0.26% carbon content.
Please answer my question. Does that look like a building collapse from weakened steel? From a not so major office fire?
Gwench, please stop trying to sidetrack me.