Nah those towers were built to last. They were built to survive major earthquakes and hurricane force winds. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel used in the construction of the twin towers. Also George Bush’s cousin recently became the CEO of the security company that was contracted to protect the towers. 2 weeks before the attack the did a so called security update on the software and cameras within the tower. Think of that what u will. Also why did they sell all the scrap steel to China after the attack during the clean allowing no scientist to examine the steel. That’s just a drop in the bucket of info we were never told.
I thought the "jet fuel don't melt steel beams" thing was but a meme by now. You don't have to actually melt steel in order to have it lose its bearing capacity. But I guess you know that quite well (?)
I don't doubt shenanigans, but the physics of the collapse itself makes sense, as it isn't just heat for that type of steel but pressure combined with heat. There still were like 30 floors above where the impact was, that is a lot of weight for heated steel to hold, even on the bottom end of a house fire at 1,000 degrees.
SImple physics disproves this. The building is designed at all times and all places to hold the weight above. A little jet fuel at the 89th floor, hypothetically weakening certain parts of the steel structure and leading to partial collapse, would pancake no more than 4 to 5 floors below the 89th floor.
Then the engineered support, which always and in all places, is designed to hold floors 85-101, would stop the collapse. The jet fuel which is about as threatening as Sterno is long burnt off.
You have to look at the fact that no steel building has EVER burned down, and the amount of jet fuel is dinky compared to the mass of the buildings. There are some excellent graphics demonstrating this.
Have you ever used lighter fluid? Played with fire at all? The jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning. Heat weakens steel a lot.
There is also a big difference between a static load and a dynamic load; the supports weren't designed to hold against the momentum of collapsing floors above them.
That's all fine and yeah a lot of sketchy stuff but you didn't read what I wrote. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but it doesn't need to. It just had to burn hot enough to soften and deform them, which it did, causing them to bend and sag and destroy the outer beams.
Nah those towers were built to last. They were built to survive major earthquakes and hurricane force winds. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel used in the construction of the twin towers. Also George Bush’s cousin recently became the CEO of the security company that was contracted to protect the towers. 2 weeks before the attack the did a so called security update on the software and cameras within the tower. Think of that what u will. Also why did they sell all the scrap steel to China after the attack during the clean allowing no scientist to examine the steel. That’s just a drop in the bucket of info we were never told.
I thought the "jet fuel don't melt steel beams" thing was but a meme by now. You don't have to actually melt steel in order to have it lose its bearing capacity. But I guess you know that quite well (?)
You're not accounting for any of the evidence of molten steel. There's tons of that. Still red hot weeks later.
I don't doubt shenanigans, but the physics of the collapse itself makes sense, as it isn't just heat for that type of steel but pressure combined with heat. There still were like 30 floors above where the impact was, that is a lot of weight for heated steel to hold, even on the bottom end of a house fire at 1,000 degrees.
SImple physics disproves this. The building is designed at all times and all places to hold the weight above. A little jet fuel at the 89th floor, hypothetically weakening certain parts of the steel structure and leading to partial collapse, would pancake no more than 4 to 5 floors below the 89th floor.
Then the engineered support, which always and in all places, is designed to hold floors 85-101, would stop the collapse. The jet fuel which is about as threatening as Sterno is long burnt off.
You have to look at the fact that no steel building has EVER burned down, and the amount of jet fuel is dinky compared to the mass of the buildings. There are some excellent graphics demonstrating this.
Have you ever used lighter fluid? Played with fire at all? The jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning. Heat weakens steel a lot.
There is also a big difference between a static load and a dynamic load; the supports weren't designed to hold against the momentum of collapsing floors above them.
Popular Mechanics (controlled disinformation) enters the chat.
They were also designed and built to take multiple aircraft collisions.
That's all fine and yeah a lot of sketchy stuff but you didn't read what I wrote. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but it doesn't need to. It just had to burn hot enough to soften and deform them, which it did, causing them to bend and sag and destroy the outer beams.
This comment brought to you by a guy who probably only has a GED.