OK so every conspiracy about the actual physical building is written by people who have no idea about anything at all.
It really mirrors the JFK grassy knoll, multiple shooter shit- the interesting questions are all about whether the CIA put him up to it, and the theories about how he shot a bullet at a guy’s head are really distractions. Like if the CIA didn’t come up with those physics conspiracies, they would have kicked themselves for being so stupid.
The official story is that intelligence knew 9/11 was maybe gonna happen and somehow ignored it.
But it was PLANES. They let PLANES hit buildings. If it was an op, the op was done with fucking planes!
Like okay, the biggest 9/11 truther meme is “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” - this one is so fucking embarrassing. Steel performs like shit in fires. Wood is literally way better.
I’ll say it again: Steel fails faster than wood in a fire. Steel is dog shit in a fire. Steel doesn’t need to MELT in order to fail. The melting point is where it becomes liquid like soup. Before it becomes soup, it becomes play-dough. Before that, it becomes weak steel that can’t hold up a giant-ass building.
Every 9/11 truther confidently said “but jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” millions of times, and didn’t have the brains to picture a blacksmith bending moderately hot metal like it’s rubber.
“Why did it fall like that though? That’s not how—” Because it was built like an eggshell. The tiny windows were because basically the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge. Practically no buildings are built that way, because it kind of sucks ass.
Talking about dumb shit like thermite is just a distraction from asking if the worst intelligence failure in American history was an accident and exploited, or done on purpose.
hey everyone, devil`s advocate here (and a civil engineer).
the critical temperature in question is not the melting point. at lower temperatures, steel behaves elastically, meaning it regains its initial state. then it starts to behave elastoplastically, which means it almost regains its initial state with no critical damage. then it behaves plastically, which means it deforms and cant get back its initial state and leads to structural failure, gradually. eurocode 3 covers building fires up to 800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
additionally saying that “the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong. nobody even would consider to design a building like that, and i know for a fact that the core of this specific building was exceptionally and unnecesarily built strong.
i have been having this inner conflict with myself for decades. these two building fell after a plane hit them (and another without a plane impact). but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
“Building 7” if I remember correctly. Did kind of seem like “well everyone else was falling so I joined in.” Lol
If I remember my conspiracy nonsense correct, there was claimed to have been storage for some sort of documents in that building but I can’t remember what it was exactly.
Wasn’t it that the supports that joined the floor trusses to the frame heated to plasticity and eventually failed, leading to an entire floor falling down onto another, the loading of which was well in excess of that’s floor’s design, and causing a to a cascading effect?
800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
I didn’t think I’d even have to mention that the jet fuel lit massive amounts of plastic, cloth and wood on fire. Come on. And yes steel does lose strength at 800c. Look it up
“the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong.
“entire strength” yeah whatever, hyperbole- I know it had a core. Half of the strength. Half of the strength, as opposed to the normal amount supported by the exterior walls in skyscrapers, which is extremely little. That is why it fell like an eggshell. They had huge open areas to make the offices more comfortable, and they made that possible by placing shitloads of the support structure on the exterior wall.
but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
OK so every conspiracy about the actual physical building is written by people who have no idea about anything at all.
It really mirrors the JFK grassy knoll, multiple shooter shit- the interesting questions are all about whether the CIA put him up to it, and the theories about how he shot a bullet at a guy’s head are really distractions. Like if the CIA didn’t come up with those physics conspiracies, they would have kicked themselves for being so stupid.
The official story is that intelligence knew 9/11 was maybe gonna happen and somehow ignored it.
But it was PLANES. They let PLANES hit buildings. If it was an op, the op was done with fucking planes!
Like okay, the biggest 9/11 truther meme is “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” - this one is so fucking embarrassing. Steel performs like shit in fires. Wood is literally way better.
I’ll say it again: Steel fails faster than wood in a fire. Steel is dog shit in a fire. Steel doesn’t need to MELT in order to fail. The melting point is where it becomes liquid like soup. Before it becomes soup, it becomes play-dough. Before that, it becomes weak steel that can’t hold up a giant-ass building.
Every 9/11 truther confidently said “but jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” millions of times, and didn’t have the brains to picture a blacksmith bending moderately hot metal like it’s rubber.
“Why did it fall like that though? That’s not how—” Because it was built like an eggshell. The tiny windows were because basically the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge. Practically no buildings are built that way, because it kind of sucks ass.
Talking about dumb shit like thermite is just a distraction from asking if the worst intelligence failure in American history was an accident and exploited, or done on purpose.
hey everyone, devil`s advocate here (and a civil engineer).
the critical temperature in question is not the melting point. at lower temperatures, steel behaves elastically, meaning it regains its initial state. then it starts to behave elastoplastically, which means it almost regains its initial state with no critical damage. then it behaves plastically, which means it deforms and cant get back its initial state and leads to structural failure, gradually. eurocode 3 covers building fires up to 800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
additionally saying that “the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong. nobody even would consider to design a building like that, and i know for a fact that the core of this specific building was exceptionally and unnecesarily built strong.
i have been having this inner conflict with myself for decades. these two building fell after a plane hit them (and another without a plane impact). but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
“Building 7” if I remember correctly. Did kind of seem like “well everyone else was falling so I joined in.” Lol
If I remember my conspiracy nonsense correct, there was claimed to have been storage for some sort of documents in that building but I can’t remember what it was exactly.
Wasn’t it that the supports that joined the floor trusses to the frame heated to plasticity and eventually failed, leading to an entire floor falling down onto another, the loading of which was well in excess of that’s floor’s design, and causing a to a cascading effect?
yes
I didn’t think I’d even have to mention that the jet fuel lit massive amounts of plastic, cloth and wood on fire. Come on. And yes steel does lose strength at 800c. Look it up
“entire strength” yeah whatever, hyperbole- I know it had a core. Half of the strength. Half of the strength, as opposed to the normal amount supported by the exterior walls in skyscrapers, which is extremely little. That is why it fell like an eggshell. They had huge open areas to make the offices more comfortable, and they made that possible by placing shitloads of the support structure on the exterior wall.
Don’t you design culverts?