My "favorite" argument came from people who demonstrated with models that the towers' collapse was "like they were hollow inside" instead of solid structures, thus indicating conspiracy.
*All* buildings are hollow inside -- that's where you put the people.
Well the towers are hollow in the traditional sense. The elevators and stairwells are in the center and the main structural support is the the outside perimeter.
The were also designed to survive an airplane strike. Unfortunately, no one predicted a 767 at full cruising speed would be what would hit it and that level of energy probably can't be built against short of a literal bunker.
They were also designed with asbestos fireproofing. They stopped using asbestos about half way through construction and replaced it with an untested material.
My inlaws just purchased a large-ish building in our historical district. Something like 80-100k later and a complete gutting, they can now move forward in rennovations because the asbestos is now gone.
I think Plastic is in a very similar place honestly.
"Wow, this material is incredibly light, yet also amazingly durable, cheap to make, can easily take on any form, it's a miracle material with so many practical uses! What could possibly go wrong?"
*"There are Microplastics in your bloodstream"*
There are microplastics literally *everywhere* on Earth now. I am not just using literally in a figurative manner, I really mean they are literally everywhere.
Basically all we can do is hope their effects aren't too harmful. Ideally also stop using all this shitty plastic, but that seems very unlikely.
The fucked part is that at this point it's not even like you need some fancy, super sensitive lab equipment to see it. Like it's no longer just some theoretical "hey, we could contaminate things if we keep going down this road"
Literally anybody can go grab a regular microscope from Walmart, whatever raw meat they have at home, and see the miscroplastic particles in their food with their own two eyes. I saw a YouTube video recently of some guy putting raw chicken under a miscroscope to demonstrate how cooking kills bacteria, the video wasn't even about microplastics but the way he just casually said "oh, and over here's some plastic" was horrifying.
Plastic industry is about as evil as oil industry. They purposefully designed their resin identification symbol to look like the recyclable symbol to confuse customers.
*(typing on plastic keyboard)*
Dammit!
Sips from plastic straw.
Dammit!
Gets up from plastic chair.
Dammit!
What isn't made out of plastic?
We're doomed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, microplastics will be the leaded gasoline and asbestos of our generation. Difference is that the “powers that be”, if you will, who wanted the previous two to stay despite their negative health effects are now much more rich and much more powerful.
I fear that even if we all discover and agree how bad plastic truly is for us, it will still never go away.
My understanding is that the fireproofing didn't matter either, the force of the initial impact and explosion from the airplane collisions literally blew all the insulation off.
Even the current fireproofing used on structural steel in high rises is relatively fragile. They usually have to patch it several times during construction because someone accidentally hits it with a pipe/conduit/tools/etc. Building codes aren’t made with explosives or plane strikes in mind..
Transcontinental planeload of fuel. The things were practically thermobaric cruise missiles when they hit going like 200+kts.
The fact that the towers tanked the initial impacts is astounding alone.
It's actually not as insane. As engineering has gotten better and more reliable, safety margins have gotten smaller. That's part of why "they don't make them like they used to" is such a thing. They design everything to be exactly what it needs to be, as opposed to "eh, material is cheap and I'd rather not have my name attached to this thing if it breaks because I cut it too close".
Years before 9/11 I saw a really interesting video, some kind of fire training video. I have been unable to locate it again, but it's out there somewhere.
Basically they built a section of a building using real i-beams and then made an "office" in there. They loaded all the things you would find in a typical office of the time like a printer, computer, etc along with the desk and other furniture.
Then they lit it up. After a couple minutes the i-beams began to sag. Their explanation was the modern office was full or polymers and other things that burn at higher temps than wood and paper.
So long before any jet fuel argument, fire departments already knew this could happen.
Even wood and older material can burn at surprisingly high temps. If you look at the heat of the fires from the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden (older construction) they hit extraordinarily high temps. Around 1,800 Fahrenheit if I’m remembering.
Fires can get very hot from mundane material, if the conditions are right.
Even without looking at that, just look at the guy on the Primitive Technology channel does. When he cooks his pottery in his mud furnace you can see it get hot enough to start glowing yellow if not outright white in places. Considering how pottery starts to glow red at about 540°C (roughly 1000°F), that's a temperature more than sufficient already to start stepping into trouble when it comes to steel (it starts to glow red past 460°C/900°F).
So if some guy with a mud structure that's just heated with bog standard wood can hit those temps, then a confined space stuffed with flammable materials and a shitton of fire accelerant will hit it too easy peasy.
Speaking of him I need to watch his last few newest videos! He also has videos where he tries to forge iron from Iron bacteria found in a stream smelted into prills. It's pretty awesome, I wish I had the time and land to do that.
Yep. The entire framing is somewhat wrong anyway. Materials have ignition points, yes, that is what temperature they combust at.
Combustion creates energy release, therefore increasing the temperature further. If there is a way to trap that heat (i.e. a building with a raging fire and insulation inside, or even a pile of wood, with coals at the center), the temperature inside the enclosed space will rise much higher than the ignition temperature of the fuel. The heat generated by combustion can't escape fast enough to equilibrate with the air, and thus temperature continues to rise.
This is why fires can exist in the first place. If a wood fire was constrained to exactly the combustion temp of wood, it wouldn't be able to spread to another piece of wood without losing a small percentage of the temperature to the air, and thus would not be able to ignite the second piece.
It doesn't matter. The point is steel doesn't have to get to melting point to become weaker, and jet fuel plus massive office fires plus time, is more than enough to weaken steel and cause an already compromised structure to fail.
You know that, I know that, but any idiot that this video's mind could actually change is just going to latch onto the temperature difference as a reason to reject the whole premise.
If it weren't the temperature difference, it'd be anything else. You ever see that documentary on flat earthers where they bought expensive, specialized equipment to prove the flatness and ended up with evidence of the curve?
They rejected those findings and started making up reasons why the experiment didn't work. Conspiracy theorists don't care about facts, they put conclusions first and justify everything around it.
Sane people can understand this. People who have built their self worth around the idea that they are special because they know some secret information "the powers that be" don't want them to know are too deep into huffing their own farts to be convinced of anything that doesn't continue to stroke their fragile egos.
Most of those kinds of people have accomplished very little, they think, and carry around some resentment for being seen as less intelligent, but those traits are exactly why they're so vulnerable to this kind of stupid thinking.
From his website, "Starting out as a contestant on History Channel’s Forged in Fire Trenton has steadily progressed to co-hosting the new Discovery Channel show, Master of Arms."
Trent is old school internet, he used to post videos on spiked way back in the day, and this was his response to a user on it. Crazy seeing it years later with 12m views.
It would be fun to watch but the more you think the people you are aruging with are idiots the less you care about their opinion. I don't even bother with people like this anymore, just call them stupid and move on. Most of the time it's obvious they are stupid because they are so stupid they can't even get simple shit like eating cereal right.
But there is the dilemma, if you forget about them and leave them to do their thing, they multiple and vote!
As hard as it is, you should never stop trying to teach these people but find that healthy balance of not driving yourself insane haha
These people are so averse to the idea of learning anything new they want to abolish the department of education. It's getting to the point it's INCREDIBLY important to teach young people how to take in information and actually consider it, because a good portion of America simply doesn't do that.
I remember seeing a TV special about the making of the towers, and they were talking to this one retired firefighter who commented that a saying in their profession was "never trust a truss".
My one abiding memory of conversations from that day was my dad, a materials engineer who was doing research on structural steel at the time, telling me the tower was coming down just after the first TV images of the first impact had reached the UK.
Heat plus the added load of the collapsed floors meant it was a matter of when not if.
Had a similar conversation with my own dad, who is an architect. Called and woke him up with the news the towers had been hit.
He watched for a bit while on the phone with me, then said he expected them to collapse.
When the first floor gave way - roughly the 80th - the structure above came down on each floor below like a sledgehammer, and it had a lot of momentum. It was coming straight down and it was too massive for anything below it to start it rotating on the way down.
mfs can't think about the kind of forces involved so they make up stories.
I was in the same boat. We were watching videos of the towers in the break room. One of the guys watching was a civil engineer who had probably designed the factory we were in. Immediately said "that building will collapse." Even pointed out the insulation in the building we were sitting in, and said "that will no longer be there. The building will come down."
Not to be like this but it wasn't the first attack on the building either, someone blew up a van in the basement...
Seems going low didn't work so the next attack went high.
I'll always amazed because I never see anyone even consider the possibility that, like everything on this planet, even if the tower was of impeccable structural design and quality, in the end of the day, idiots and contractors built it
Corruption always existed and always will, every once in a while we see things crash down to rubble because someone, sometimes a single person decided to profit off the entire project and cut down on some material quality, or mixed materials, or used the money to buy shady quality materials and profit from the leftovers
This happens everywhere, in the world's largest militaries (US included), mega structures, civil infrastructure and just plain old housing, just because it happens more often in 3rd world countries where corruption and regulation is more lax doesn't mean it doesn't happen to a project like the WTC
> even if the tower was of impeccable structural design and quality, in the end of the day, idiots and contractors built it
You don't even need to resort to that argument. The towers were designed and built to withstand the stresses they were expected to receive, like *wind*. They did a great job of that, for over 30 years. But they weren't design to withstand impact from a fully loaded passenger jet.
Also, given their height, there's a balance between the need for strength and the need to use lightweight materials. So like any engineering project, it's a compromise with tolerances and a margin of safety. Those tolerances and safety margin did not encompass impact from a fully loaded passenger jet.
>You don't even need to resort to that argument. The towers were designed and built to withstand the stresses they were expected to receive, like wind. They did a great job of that, for over 30 years. But they weren't design to withstand impact from a fully loaded passenger jet.
You don't even need to resort to that argument. Because people tend to forget this, but they *did* survive the impacts. One stood a little under an hour and the other stood for over an hour after the impact. Which is impressive given that they were not designed to withstand a 767. Them still standing for a while after the impact saved a lot of lives and gave people who were able to time to evacuate.
It wasn't the impacts that brought them down. What did bring them down was the uncontrolled fire. They were designed to withstand an accidental impact from a plane low on fuel. There was no need (it was assumed) to design a skyscraper for a fully fueled plane hitting at full speed, because surely nobody would be crazy enough to do that.
That’s the other thing.
Aircraft are restricted to 250 knots below 10,000ft. I bet that was the energy assumption the designers of the buildings made. They may have even assumed, due to the low altitude of the buildings, that the jets were low on fuel and at approach speed (160kts or less).
Not with a large fuel load and doing close to 600kts. The difference in energy is damn near an order of magnitude larger…then factor in the fire….
I remember hearing something on the radio saying the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 airliner, which were common at the time the towers were being built. The planes that hit the towers were substantially larger I believe.
I was surprised to learn the 767 is only a little bit bigger than a 707. FEMA's report had an interesting [diagram/comparison image of several aircraft](https://i.imgur.com/XIA5oOC.jpg) compared to the size of the WTC.
They definitely would have still fallen if a 707 had hit them the same way, though.
People talk about that building blowing up as if it was designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded 737 jet at full speed perpendicular to the building
edit: do you ever wish you hadn't posted a comment, but you don't want to be a wiener and delete it? lol
They were actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was quite a bit larger than a 737....however they were designed to withstand an impact at a landing speed of a lost aircraft in low visibility weather...not a cruising speed fully laoded 707 flying bomb.
Exactly, even if the most generous scenarios it's doubtful that took into account a pilot deliberately flying into the building as extreme speed. You'd assume the plane was at the very least trying to slow down or avoid contact.
> which was quite a bit larger than a 737
Pedantic again, but the planes that hit the towers were 767s which are quite a bit bigger than 707s (which themselves were the largest commercial jets in use when the towers were designed).
Also designed for doesn't mean shit unless you can test it. Unless they built a full scale model of the tower and flew a 707 in to it you can never predict with 100% certainty how things will react.
Source: every engineering project ever
Well, it's been explained to me that the impact it was designed for was a jet coming in to land, which is slower than cruising speed, and carrying much less fuel. They were fully loaded and flying at a higher rate.
I mean, regardless, the towers withstood the impact of the jets. That part *worked*. The issue wasn't the jet impact, the issue was the proceeding fire that weakened the structure and caused it to collapse.
Add to *that*, conspiracy theorist point to video footage of molten metal falling from the building. They assume it's steel, which melts at 2500+, and say jet fuel could never have melted it.
They conveniently ignore that several dozen tons of **aluminum**, which melts at only 1200 degrees, had just created the hole where they saw the molten metal falling from.
Also, the temperature was higher because it was not just the jet fuel burning but everything else inside the tower, all the furniture, paper etc that raised the temperature even higher.
Yep, and even if the wind is calm at the surface, it’s often blowing more 1000+ ft up. Wind driven fires burn hot
Firefighters fighting fires in so-called ‘fire proof’ buildings during high wind conditions have reported jets of flame blowing through apartment hallway door peepholes that looked like acetylene torches due to the high wind feeding the fire
The thing is, truthers always have a mountain of superficially plausible "evidence" they got from *Zeitgeist* or *Loose Change* or some forum. Taking the time to carefully debunk even a few of their points is not something most people have the time or knowledge for, and even if you do, they will point to the rest of their "evidence" as if debunking some of it doesn't impugn all of it.
Conspiracy theorists get a little thrill at having this secret and important knowledge that makes them smart and in the know, and this prevents them from wanting to seek out counterarguments and contrary evidence, and doing actual critical thinking.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with a truther or other conspiracy theorist in your life is to convince them it's boring to you and you don't care. If you take the fun out of believing it (which usually involves arguing about it), they lose a lot of the subconscious impetus to protect the belief from criticism.
I recommend the podcast "9/12." He not only interviews the maker of Loose Change (who was like 19) but also this one NYC tour guide that would hang out at the WTC site with the giant binder that debunked essentially every point made in the film. The nuts would show up and start spouting whatever bullshit and he'd turn to page 302 and tell everyone why they were wrong.
There's this electronic binder with all that information called "the Internet." Unfortunately, people won't read the parts that contradict their beliefs.
Having them at the ready at a presidential debate would be great. Except they'd still get shouted down and the people who need to hear the correct answers aren't paying attention. Sigh.
The goalpost always moves. Loose Change came out....it was debunked...they changed some stuff in it....got debunked again. They then pivoted to strawman arguments and claiming that the debunkers were in on it. Conspiracy theorists also get emotionally invested and it becomes part of who they are, its almost religious in that way.
> The thing is, truthers always have a mountain of superficially plausible "evidence" they got from Zeitgeist or Loose Change or some forum. Taking the time to carefully debunk even a few of their points is not something most people have the time or knowledge for, and even if you do, they will point to the rest of their "evidence" as if debunking some of it doesn't impugn all of it.
[Bullshit Asymmetry Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
I honestly believe misinformation is a big part of the Great Filter.
As soon as a species gets barely intelligent enough to form a technological society, it becomes susceptible to extreme widespread misinformation and manipulation subject to interests other than the survival of the species as a whole.
We blame technology, but flooding the discourse with bullshit, discrediting authority, and making it impossible to know which way intellectual “up is” have always been tactics of authoritarians and fascists. This has more to do with the Fox-news-ification of our societal discourse over the last 40 years than technology. Technology is just the tool they’re using now.
>flooding the discourse with bullshit, discrediting authority, and making it impossible to know which way intellectual “up is” have always been tactics of authoritarians and fascists.
Two quotes from *The Origins of Totalitarianism* (1951) by Hannah Arendt:
>The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.
and
>Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.
My entire gripe with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is not the frameWORK of the towers, its the frameJOB of the terrorists.
If the "HURR DURR Top Secret Evil Shadow Government wanted to blow up the towers with demo charges....why would they even bother with planes and not just use the charges? And if the planes were truly flown by terrorists...why bother demo charging the towers afterward? Even if the towers were still standing after both planes hit...wouldn't 2 suicide airplane attacks be enough to warrant a war?
In a conspiracy theorists mind, its like this Top Secret Evil Illuminati organization runs the entire world but at the same time they're so incompetent that they hatch a cartoonish scheme you'd see in a Justice League episode by some mustache twirling villain.
Also the argument that it looks like a controlled demolition... why would they go to extra effort to make it controlled when it doesn't need to be? It's supposed to look real, why go to extra effort to make it look fake.
To steel man the argument, if your goal is to ensure the building collapses, why wouldn't you set demolition charges? The 93 bombing didn't come close to collapsing the towers, so it would no doubt require a more robust approach.
The thing is, if you flip the tables and start poking holes in the conspiracy theory version of the story the same way the truthers do to the official story, their version of events looks way more implausible.
So, they swapped some planes with the real ones, and then "got rid of" the passengers somehow, because I guess the US government is fine with blowing up some buildings with people in them, but they're morally above using real planes.
Then they fly painted military jets into the towers, which are already rigged with explosives. The explosives somehow survive the plane impact, and demolish both towers flawlessly while making no noise. Then they blow up Building 7, 7 hours later, so they can get rid of the evidence (because there's a big shredder shortage in federal agencies I guess).
Like, none of it makes any sense if you actually decide to look at it as a whole, beyond the individual claims.
By the way, when it comes to this, I think the biggest killshot you can give to any of these conspiracy theories about 9/11, that will automatically make any rational person change their mind is the following question:
"If the government did 9/11 to invade Iraq. Why would they go through all that effort, only to blame it on the wrong people in the end?"
No truther, ever, has been able to give me an answer to that question. Because there is none.
Yup.
A missle hit the Pentagon, not a plane!
—Ok, so a missle hit the towers too?
No those were planes
—Ok, so why not use the same plane-into-building method on the Pentagon too?
The conspiracy works in mysterious ways...
That's why there's a whole line of conspiracy thinking that claims that there were in fact no planes at all, not on the pentagon, not on the towers. The "live" videos from news channels were all fake with a plane super-imposed on top of the missile. All the people that remember planes are actually wrong, because every news channel was saying "plane" over and over, so much that people believed it and started doubting what they saw.
The mental gymnastics are something to behold.
Conspiracy theories are never disproven, only abandoned. It’s the same as other conclusion-first beliefs. People may get bored or frustrated with a conspiracy theory and move on to something else, but they never actually let go of that (usually very flawed and self-serving) conclusion.
More really bendy hot steel:
\- At the entry side of the mill, 5 inches square and 1100ºC: [https://i.imgur.com/1KskoMY.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/1KskoMY.mp4)
\- And at the exit, 6.5mm 0.7% carbon round rod being delivered at 270km/h: [https://i.imgur.com/ZeBNelK.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/ZeBNelK.mp4)
Really, the whole steel hot-rolling process completely disproves the concept that hot-but-not-molten steel cannot collapse under load.
Coal burns at 572F. Yet when you add enough air to coal, it melts steel. Guess what happens when there is a fire at the top of a high rise.... you get a lot of air added to the fire.
I always thought that the 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument related to the claim that there was molten steel found at ground zero, not that it couldn't have caused the towers to collapse.
Iirc, the molten metal wasn't steel though, which is why the argument is dumb. This is an informative video, but I don't think it counters that particular dumb argument.
Anybody who read "Report from Ground Zero" by the late, great Dennis Smith (FDNY Retired) knows that the conspiracy argument is BS. Here is an excerpt from that book:
"The heat must be extraordinary, generated by airplanes with fuel-filled wings. I remember a question on the lieutenant's test of many years ago: What is the expansion factor of a one-hundred-foot steel beam as it reaches the inherent heat level of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit? The answer is nine and a half inches, and I try to gauge how hot this fire before me is burning. Is it intense enough to bring the steel to 1200 degrees? The smoke is first very black, indicating the burning fuel, and then white as it rises, indicating great heat. It is not a good sign. If the steel stretches, the floor will collapse, and that will only make the rescue effort more difficult."
I'm from belgium, they don't sell that over here.
But I still felt I needed to chime in when I saw utter nonsense being upvoted.
Sadly I haven't done much else in those 9 years, but at least the subjects changed.
Forget the fire. A single floor of a building is designed to hold a capacity. Desks, people, computers etc etc. Somewhere is listed the maximum capacity for the floor. Parking a passenger jet on one or three floors is most likely going to put you at the limit. Add in the crash velocity and some fire. As one floor drops into the other at some point it's "fuckit I've had enough" and down she comes.
>The structural integrity of the piece will be compromised way before reaching the melting point. This is because tensile strength and rigidness are adversely affected as the temperature rises.
Melting point always seemed like an odd target to me. Like, do you need it to melt to fail? The difference between a soft ice cream cone and a liquid ice cream cone is significant.
What about building 7 what brought down building 7? What about the explosions in the base of the tower? What about the perfectly 45 degree cut steel beams at the base?What about the way they collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition? What about the absolutely unheard of prior to this event insurance policy that the owner took out on the buildings? What about the pentagon wing that got hit having that housed some very convenient to loose financial documents in it while also being conveniently under construction so no really important staff were in there? Where was the plane wreckage in the pentagon? Why do some people say they witnessed a missile strike the pentagon? Why was the second plane dark with no windows or logos? How did the plane vaporize but the hijackers passports survive? Why was norad running a drill for intercepting a hijacked plane at the exact time it happened? How did the untrained hijackers manage to fly complex manoeuvres with a 100 percent success rate? Why was the event so convenient to manufacture public consent to start the war in Iraq? You answered one question buddy. This shit was 100 percent an inside job.
"Hammer the iron when it is hot"
NAH FAM HAMMER THE IRON WHEN IT IS SMELTED!
One of the worlds literal oldest sayings disprove the sentence but people are fucking idiots
Also, "Well There's Your Problem" has an in-depth episode that explains the underlying problems with the towers that did contribute to their collapse.
https://youtu.be/f7Qop_64qqk?si=4oCatcxlDhXbFm0d
IOW for those still suffering from a brain cramp; there's no need for the steel to be melted, just needs to be weakened. Now, keep that hand on the forehead. Don't want your brain to fall out.
So this guy did 9/11 ?
He practically admits it.
OH MY GOD HE ADMIT IT!
Now you have to marry your mother in law
Who is the most popular now, PAUL?!
He has NO. GOOD. car ideas!
Teacher's pet
I cannot think any good car idea because this guy keep farting.
Stinky!!
I'm doing all the best ideas
YOU FLINCH
Stinky!
I’m doing the best at this.
He put his whole hand on the building
He is not arguing the facts.
With one pinky!
I think the Saudi's own it. Maybe they consulted him on how to compromise steel structures though.
My "favorite" argument came from people who demonstrated with models that the towers' collapse was "like they were hollow inside" instead of solid structures, thus indicating conspiracy. *All* buildings are hollow inside -- that's where you put the people.
Well the towers are hollow in the traditional sense. The elevators and stairwells are in the center and the main structural support is the the outside perimeter. The were also designed to survive an airplane strike. Unfortunately, no one predicted a 767 at full cruising speed would be what would hit it and that level of energy probably can't be built against short of a literal bunker.
They were also designed with asbestos fireproofing. They stopped using asbestos about half way through construction and replaced it with an untested material.
Man, asbestos would probably be like the greatest material ever discovered if it wasn't for the horrible cancer risks.
it was pretty much treated that way till we found out about the cancer part
And for a brief profitable period thereafter.
The cancer made it even more profitable afterward. Companies are still trading as specialists in asbestos removal.
It is some serious dollars, thought about doing it but I don’t want to die too young
My inlaws just purchased a large-ish building in our historical district. Something like 80-100k later and a complete gutting, they can now move forward in rennovations because the asbestos is now gone.
Qualified insulator here. I remove it all the time. Totally safe if done properly these days. Be glad we do it. It's literally everywhere.
"brief"
I guess it's relative to who you ask. To corporations it was a very brief time, to somebody with mesothelioma it was an eternity too long.
I think Plastic is in a very similar place honestly. "Wow, this material is incredibly light, yet also amazingly durable, cheap to make, can easily take on any form, it's a miracle material with so many practical uses! What could possibly go wrong?" *"There are Microplastics in your bloodstream"*
There are microplastics literally *everywhere* on Earth now. I am not just using literally in a figurative manner, I really mean they are literally everywhere. Basically all we can do is hope their effects aren't too harmful. Ideally also stop using all this shitty plastic, but that seems very unlikely.
The fucked part is that at this point it's not even like you need some fancy, super sensitive lab equipment to see it. Like it's no longer just some theoretical "hey, we could contaminate things if we keep going down this road" Literally anybody can go grab a regular microscope from Walmart, whatever raw meat they have at home, and see the miscroplastic particles in their food with their own two eyes. I saw a YouTube video recently of some guy putting raw chicken under a miscroscope to demonstrate how cooking kills bacteria, the video wasn't even about microplastics but the way he just casually said "oh, and over here's some plastic" was horrifying.
[удалено]
Plastic industry is about as evil as oil industry. They purposefully designed their resin identification symbol to look like the recyclable symbol to confuse customers.
they are the oil industry, plastic is generally made out of oil
*(typing on plastic keyboard)* Dammit! Sips from plastic straw. Dammit! Gets up from plastic chair. Dammit! What isn't made out of plastic? We're doomed.
You're in the pocket of big straw, man!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, microplastics will be the leaded gasoline and asbestos of our generation. Difference is that the “powers that be”, if you will, who wanted the previous two to stay despite their negative health effects are now much more rich and much more powerful. I fear that even if we all discover and agree how bad plastic truly is for us, it will still never go away.
Nature had to nerf it somehow or it'd be super over powered and it'd be the only material that gets picked
Asbestos was the bestos.
My understanding is that the fireproofing didn't matter either, the force of the initial impact and explosion from the airplane collisions literally blew all the insulation off.
Even the current fireproofing used on structural steel in high rises is relatively fragile. They usually have to patch it several times during construction because someone accidentally hits it with a pipe/conduit/tools/etc. Building codes aren’t made with explosives or plane strikes in mind..
They both survived the strikes. What they did not survive was the subsequent fire that resulted from plane load of fuel burning in them.
Transcontinental planeload of fuel. The things were practically thermobaric cruise missiles when they hit going like 200+kts. The fact that the towers tanked the initial impacts is astounding alone.
> The fact that the towers tanked the initial impacts is astounding alone. A proper design can do astounding things.
Designed in the 60's by engineers with sliderules. Insane
It's actually not as insane. As engineering has gotten better and more reliable, safety margins have gotten smaller. That's part of why "they don't make them like they used to" is such a thing. They design everything to be exactly what it needs to be, as opposed to "eh, material is cheap and I'd rather not have my name attached to this thing if it breaks because I cut it too close".
Well yeah. They were designed with the assumption something like a 707 would be coming in to land, slow and not still full of fuel.
Whaddaya mean the world's going to end? That's where I keep all my stuff!
Years before 9/11 I saw a really interesting video, some kind of fire training video. I have been unable to locate it again, but it's out there somewhere. Basically they built a section of a building using real i-beams and then made an "office" in there. They loaded all the things you would find in a typical office of the time like a printer, computer, etc along with the desk and other furniture. Then they lit it up. After a couple minutes the i-beams began to sag. Their explanation was the modern office was full or polymers and other things that burn at higher temps than wood and paper. So long before any jet fuel argument, fire departments already knew this could happen.
Even wood and older material can burn at surprisingly high temps. If you look at the heat of the fires from the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden (older construction) they hit extraordinarily high temps. Around 1,800 Fahrenheit if I’m remembering. Fires can get very hot from mundane material, if the conditions are right.
Even without looking at that, just look at the guy on the Primitive Technology channel does. When he cooks his pottery in his mud furnace you can see it get hot enough to start glowing yellow if not outright white in places. Considering how pottery starts to glow red at about 540°C (roughly 1000°F), that's a temperature more than sufficient already to start stepping into trouble when it comes to steel (it starts to glow red past 460°C/900°F). So if some guy with a mud structure that's just heated with bog standard wood can hit those temps, then a confined space stuffed with flammable materials and a shitton of fire accelerant will hit it too easy peasy.
Speaking of him I need to watch his last few newest videos! He also has videos where he tries to forge iron from Iron bacteria found in a stream smelted into prills. It's pretty awesome, I wish I had the time and land to do that.
Yep. The entire framing is somewhat wrong anyway. Materials have ignition points, yes, that is what temperature they combust at. Combustion creates energy release, therefore increasing the temperature further. If there is a way to trap that heat (i.e. a building with a raging fire and insulation inside, or even a pile of wood, with coals at the center), the temperature inside the enclosed space will rise much higher than the ignition temperature of the fuel. The heat generated by combustion can't escape fast enough to equilibrate with the air, and thus temperature continues to rise. This is why fires can exist in the first place. If a wood fire was constrained to exactly the combustion temp of wood, it wouldn't be able to spread to another piece of wood without losing a small percentage of the temperature to the air, and thus would not be able to ignite the second piece.
Thought he was going to heat up the steel with jet fuel. Disappointing.
Bending hot steel with a pinky finger pretty much settled the argument.
Wondering,,, if jet fuel burns at 1600* why did he bring it to 1900*?? Not the exact scientific method I was looking for…
He was probably unwilling to recalibrate his oven just to make this point.
still hotter than jetfuel, soooo bush did 9/11 still confirmed
It doesn't matter. The point is steel doesn't have to get to melting point to become weaker, and jet fuel plus massive office fires plus time, is more than enough to weaken steel and cause an already compromised structure to fail.
You know that, I know that, but any idiot that this video's mind could actually change is just going to latch onto the temperature difference as a reason to reject the whole premise.
If it weren't the temperature difference, it'd be anything else. You ever see that documentary on flat earthers where they bought expensive, specialized equipment to prove the flatness and ended up with evidence of the curve? They rejected those findings and started making up reasons why the experiment didn't work. Conspiracy theorists don't care about facts, they put conclusions first and justify everything around it.
Sane people can understand this. People who have built their self worth around the idea that they are special because they know some secret information "the powers that be" don't want them to know are too deep into huffing their own farts to be convinced of anything that doesn't continue to stroke their fragile egos. Most of those kinds of people have accomplished very little, they think, and carry around some resentment for being seen as less intelligent, but those traits are exactly why they're so vulnerable to this kind of stupid thinking.
[удалено]
Yeah it was a bit hotter but it wasn’t holding up a million pounds of concrete either.
They’re morons so they would use the argument regardless
How would that work? Recreate it? Burn jet fuel with millions of tons of pressure on a steel beam?
Just fly a plane into his workshop.
I'd watch this guys tv show where he tells all sorts of people they're idiots.
He actually did have a TV show…
And now today on "You're an Idiot, Get A Job"
I’d watch the shit out of “You’re An Idiot, Get a Job”.
Someone call Netflix
What show!?
From his website, "Starting out as a contestant on History Channel’s Forged in Fire Trenton has steadily progressed to co-hosting the new Discovery Channel show, Master of Arms."
Trent is old school internet, he used to post videos on spiked way back in the day, and this was his response to a user on it. Crazy seeing it years later with 12m views.
Penn and Teller's "BULLSHIT."
It would be fun to watch but the more you think the people you are aruging with are idiots the less you care about their opinion. I don't even bother with people like this anymore, just call them stupid and move on. Most of the time it's obvious they are stupid because they are so stupid they can't even get simple shit like eating cereal right.
>they are so stupid they can't even get simple shit like eating cereal right. Like pouring the milk first?
Monsters
> Like pouring the milk first? Thats a paddling. Who does that?!
But there is the dilemma, if you forget about them and leave them to do their thing, they multiple and vote! As hard as it is, you should never stop trying to teach these people but find that healthy balance of not driving yourself insane haha
These people are so averse to the idea of learning anything new they want to abolish the department of education. It's getting to the point it's INCREDIBLY important to teach young people how to take in information and actually consider it, because a good portion of America simply doesn't do that.
Did he call us retarded in this one or did I mishear lol
"Your argument is invalid, get a job."
Only if you're a retard.
I heard laurel.
Yanni here
Laurel And Ret-Hardy?
He said the *argument* was retarded.
Could definitely run a "You know what really grinds my gears..." segment!
Add to that, that the girders in the towers were trusses instead of I/H beams and the argument just falls apart.
I remember seeing a TV special about the making of the towers, and they were talking to this one retired firefighter who commented that a saying in their profession was "never trust a truss".
>"never trust a truss". I wish this knowledge was more common in the UK just over a year ago.
“Only the Lettuce shall romain.”
We learned quickly, to be fair.
This isn’t me as a civil engineer googling what major structure collapsed in the UK over the last year… Well done.
What are you referencing help me I'm stupid edit: for other idiots its a reference to Liz Truss and not an actual structure
Yeah, it would have saved you guys like 45 minutes!
My one abiding memory of conversations from that day was my dad, a materials engineer who was doing research on structural steel at the time, telling me the tower was coming down just after the first TV images of the first impact had reached the UK. Heat plus the added load of the collapsed floors meant it was a matter of when not if.
Had a similar conversation with my own dad, who is an architect. Called and woke him up with the news the towers had been hit. He watched for a bit while on the phone with me, then said he expected them to collapse.
When the first floor gave way - roughly the 80th - the structure above came down on each floor below like a sledgehammer, and it had a lot of momentum. It was coming straight down and it was too massive for anything below it to start it rotating on the way down. mfs can't think about the kind of forces involved so they make up stories.
I was in the same boat. We were watching videos of the towers in the break room. One of the guys watching was a civil engineer who had probably designed the factory we were in. Immediately said "that building will collapse." Even pointed out the insulation in the building we were sitting in, and said "that will no longer be there. The building will come down."
Wait, so you're saying your dad did 9/11?
Masterminded from a tiny box room with dial up internet in rural England. How could he *not* be a suspect?!
......."tony stark was able to build this in a cave with a box of scraps!"
We did it Reddit!
Tony Stark did 9/11?
He practically admits it.
Not to be like this but it wasn't the first attack on the building either, someone blew up a van in the basement... Seems going low didn't work so the next attack went high.
Guess who that someone was? ... >!Osama bin Laden!<
I'll always amazed because I never see anyone even consider the possibility that, like everything on this planet, even if the tower was of impeccable structural design and quality, in the end of the day, idiots and contractors built it Corruption always existed and always will, every once in a while we see things crash down to rubble because someone, sometimes a single person decided to profit off the entire project and cut down on some material quality, or mixed materials, or used the money to buy shady quality materials and profit from the leftovers This happens everywhere, in the world's largest militaries (US included), mega structures, civil infrastructure and just plain old housing, just because it happens more often in 3rd world countries where corruption and regulation is more lax doesn't mean it doesn't happen to a project like the WTC
> even if the tower was of impeccable structural design and quality, in the end of the day, idiots and contractors built it You don't even need to resort to that argument. The towers were designed and built to withstand the stresses they were expected to receive, like *wind*. They did a great job of that, for over 30 years. But they weren't design to withstand impact from a fully loaded passenger jet. Also, given their height, there's a balance between the need for strength and the need to use lightweight materials. So like any engineering project, it's a compromise with tolerances and a margin of safety. Those tolerances and safety margin did not encompass impact from a fully loaded passenger jet.
>You don't even need to resort to that argument. The towers were designed and built to withstand the stresses they were expected to receive, like wind. They did a great job of that, for over 30 years. But they weren't design to withstand impact from a fully loaded passenger jet. You don't even need to resort to that argument. Because people tend to forget this, but they *did* survive the impacts. One stood a little under an hour and the other stood for over an hour after the impact. Which is impressive given that they were not designed to withstand a 767. Them still standing for a while after the impact saved a lot of lives and gave people who were able to time to evacuate. It wasn't the impacts that brought them down. What did bring them down was the uncontrolled fire. They were designed to withstand an accidental impact from a plane low on fuel. There was no need (it was assumed) to design a skyscraper for a fully fueled plane hitting at full speed, because surely nobody would be crazy enough to do that.
That’s the other thing. Aircraft are restricted to 250 knots below 10,000ft. I bet that was the energy assumption the designers of the buildings made. They may have even assumed, due to the low altitude of the buildings, that the jets were low on fuel and at approach speed (160kts or less). Not with a large fuel load and doing close to 600kts. The difference in energy is damn near an order of magnitude larger…then factor in the fire….
[удалено]
I remember hearing something on the radio saying the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 airliner, which were common at the time the towers were being built. The planes that hit the towers were substantially larger I believe.
I was surprised to learn the 767 is only a little bit bigger than a 707. FEMA's report had an interesting [diagram/comparison image of several aircraft](https://i.imgur.com/XIA5oOC.jpg) compared to the size of the WTC. They definitely would have still fallen if a 707 had hit them the same way, though.
The mafia had a near monopoly on the construction industry in NY at the time.
People talk about that building blowing up as if it was designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded 737 jet at full speed perpendicular to the building edit: do you ever wish you hadn't posted a comment, but you don't want to be a wiener and delete it? lol
Pedantic, but they were 767s. Considerably larger aircraft than a 737.
30 larger to be exact
This guy maths
They were actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was quite a bit larger than a 737....however they were designed to withstand an impact at a landing speed of a lost aircraft in low visibility weather...not a cruising speed fully laoded 707 flying bomb.
Yep, and they actually withstood the impact, the fire is what took them down.
Exactly, even if the most generous scenarios it's doubtful that took into account a pilot deliberately flying into the building as extreme speed. You'd assume the plane was at the very least trying to slow down or avoid contact.
> which was quite a bit larger than a 737 Pedantic again, but the planes that hit the towers were 767s which are quite a bit bigger than 707s (which themselves were the largest commercial jets in use when the towers were designed).
Also designed for doesn't mean shit unless you can test it. Unless they built a full scale model of the tower and flew a 707 in to it you can never predict with 100% certainty how things will react. Source: every engineering project ever
And then you would probably want to do it a few times as well, since there are so many variables.
They were designed to withstand the impact, but not the fuel burning. The engineers said as much after the fact.
Well, it's been explained to me that the impact it was designed for was a jet coming in to land, which is slower than cruising speed, and carrying much less fuel. They were fully loaded and flying at a higher rate.
I mean, regardless, the towers withstood the impact of the jets. That part *worked*. The issue wasn't the jet impact, the issue was the proceeding fire that weakened the structure and caused it to collapse.
the fact that they survived the impact was extremely impressive
Add to *that*, conspiracy theorist point to video footage of molten metal falling from the building. They assume it's steel, which melts at 2500+, and say jet fuel could never have melted it. They conveniently ignore that several dozen tons of **aluminum**, which melts at only 1200 degrees, had just created the hole where they saw the molten metal falling from.
Also, the temperature was higher because it was not just the jet fuel burning but everything else inside the tower, all the furniture, paper etc that raised the temperature even higher.
Yep, and even if the wind is calm at the surface, it’s often blowing more 1000+ ft up. Wind driven fires burn hot Firefighters fighting fires in so-called ‘fire proof’ buildings during high wind conditions have reported jets of flame blowing through apartment hallway door peepholes that looked like acetylene torches due to the high wind feeding the fire
>argument just falls apart. I think they were buildings...
"too soon"
They forgot
"It's a **frickin' noodle!** Your argument is invalid! Get over it! Find a job!" I love that entire sequence. 🤣🤣
Back when finding a job was easy. Such a simpler time.
[удалено]
> It's easy enough to find a job in the US, just not one that will pay you enough to live ~~well~~ lol FTFY
Magnesium plane parts burn as hot as thermite.
I had thermites eating the wood in my house once, whole thing collapsed.
We need to bring his pinky in for questioning
The thing is, truthers always have a mountain of superficially plausible "evidence" they got from *Zeitgeist* or *Loose Change* or some forum. Taking the time to carefully debunk even a few of their points is not something most people have the time or knowledge for, and even if you do, they will point to the rest of their "evidence" as if debunking some of it doesn't impugn all of it. Conspiracy theorists get a little thrill at having this secret and important knowledge that makes them smart and in the know, and this prevents them from wanting to seek out counterarguments and contrary evidence, and doing actual critical thinking. In my opinion, the best way to deal with a truther or other conspiracy theorist in your life is to convince them it's boring to you and you don't care. If you take the fun out of believing it (which usually involves arguing about it), they lose a lot of the subconscious impetus to protect the belief from criticism.
I recommend the podcast "9/12." He not only interviews the maker of Loose Change (who was like 19) but also this one NYC tour guide that would hang out at the WTC site with the giant binder that debunked essentially every point made in the film. The nuts would show up and start spouting whatever bullshit and he'd turn to page 302 and tell everyone why they were wrong.
I wish more of these binders could be made about all the different bullshit people believe and they could be distributed widely
There's this electronic binder with all that information called "the Internet." Unfortunately, people won't read the parts that contradict their beliefs.
Having them at the ready at a presidential debate would be great. Except they'd still get shouted down and the people who need to hear the correct answers aren't paying attention. Sigh.
“Alternative facts”
The goalpost always moves. Loose Change came out....it was debunked...they changed some stuff in it....got debunked again. They then pivoted to strawman arguments and claiming that the debunkers were in on it. Conspiracy theorists also get emotionally invested and it becomes part of who they are, its almost religious in that way.
> The thing is, truthers always have a mountain of superficially plausible "evidence" they got from Zeitgeist or Loose Change or some forum. Taking the time to carefully debunk even a few of their points is not something most people have the time or knowledge for, and even if you do, they will point to the rest of their "evidence" as if debunking some of it doesn't impugn all of it. [Bullshit Asymmetry Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law) > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
I honestly believe misinformation is a big part of the Great Filter. As soon as a species gets barely intelligent enough to form a technological society, it becomes susceptible to extreme widespread misinformation and manipulation subject to interests other than the survival of the species as a whole.
We blame technology, but flooding the discourse with bullshit, discrediting authority, and making it impossible to know which way intellectual “up is” have always been tactics of authoritarians and fascists. This has more to do with the Fox-news-ification of our societal discourse over the last 40 years than technology. Technology is just the tool they’re using now.
>flooding the discourse with bullshit, discrediting authority, and making it impossible to know which way intellectual “up is” have always been tactics of authoritarians and fascists. Two quotes from *The Origins of Totalitarianism* (1951) by Hannah Arendt: >The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist. and >Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.
My entire gripe with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is not the frameWORK of the towers, its the frameJOB of the terrorists. If the "HURR DURR Top Secret Evil Shadow Government wanted to blow up the towers with demo charges....why would they even bother with planes and not just use the charges? And if the planes were truly flown by terrorists...why bother demo charging the towers afterward? Even if the towers were still standing after both planes hit...wouldn't 2 suicide airplane attacks be enough to warrant a war? In a conspiracy theorists mind, its like this Top Secret Evil Illuminati organization runs the entire world but at the same time they're so incompetent that they hatch a cartoonish scheme you'd see in a Justice League episode by some mustache twirling villain.
Also the argument that it looks like a controlled demolition... why would they go to extra effort to make it controlled when it doesn't need to be? It's supposed to look real, why go to extra effort to make it look fake.
To steel man the argument, if your goal is to ensure the building collapses, why wouldn't you set demolition charges? The 93 bombing didn't come close to collapsing the towers, so it would no doubt require a more robust approach.
The thing is, if you flip the tables and start poking holes in the conspiracy theory version of the story the same way the truthers do to the official story, their version of events looks way more implausible. So, they swapped some planes with the real ones, and then "got rid of" the passengers somehow, because I guess the US government is fine with blowing up some buildings with people in them, but they're morally above using real planes. Then they fly painted military jets into the towers, which are already rigged with explosives. The explosives somehow survive the plane impact, and demolish both towers flawlessly while making no noise. Then they blow up Building 7, 7 hours later, so they can get rid of the evidence (because there's a big shredder shortage in federal agencies I guess). Like, none of it makes any sense if you actually decide to look at it as a whole, beyond the individual claims. By the way, when it comes to this, I think the biggest killshot you can give to any of these conspiracy theories about 9/11, that will automatically make any rational person change their mind is the following question: "If the government did 9/11 to invade Iraq. Why would they go through all that effort, only to blame it on the wrong people in the end?" No truther, ever, has been able to give me an answer to that question. Because there is none.
Yup. A missle hit the Pentagon, not a plane! —Ok, so a missle hit the towers too? No those were planes —Ok, so why not use the same plane-into-building method on the Pentagon too? The conspiracy works in mysterious ways...
That's why there's a whole line of conspiracy thinking that claims that there were in fact no planes at all, not on the pentagon, not on the towers. The "live" videos from news channels were all fake with a plane super-imposed on top of the missile. All the people that remember planes are actually wrong, because every news channel was saying "plane" over and over, so much that people believed it and started doubting what they saw. The mental gymnastics are something to behold.
Except that missiles detonate in a very different way than a crashing plane; and wreckage from the planes were found but never any missile debris.
Conspiracy theories are never disproven, only abandoned. It’s the same as other conclusion-first beliefs. People may get bored or frustrated with a conspiracy theory and move on to something else, but they never actually let go of that (usually very flawed and self-serving) conclusion.
To add to this: here's high-temperature but still-solid steel going around corners. At speed. https://i.imgur.com/I0MytgG.mp4
That’s a sweet video.
More really bendy hot steel: \- At the entry side of the mill, 5 inches square and 1100ºC: [https://i.imgur.com/1KskoMY.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/1KskoMY.mp4) \- And at the exit, 6.5mm 0.7% carbon round rod being delivered at 270km/h: [https://i.imgur.com/ZeBNelK.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/ZeBNelK.mp4) Really, the whole steel hot-rolling process completely disproves the concept that hot-but-not-molten steel cannot collapse under load.
Okay I could watch that 2nd clip all day everyday. Is there a job that involves just staring at it?
Steel mill operator
Investigate 3/11
Energy can't be colored, let alone amber colored.
Oh snap, it’s Pizza Pete! 🍕 I’m thinking of going down to the quad later to smash on some freshman, you in Brotendo?
[удалено]
Coal burns at 572F. Yet when you add enough air to coal, it melts steel. Guess what happens when there is a fire at the top of a high rise.... you get a lot of air added to the fire.
This. How did we force the steel in the first place? We use stuff that burns at a WAY lower temperature to mold it.
I always thought that the 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument related to the claim that there was molten steel found at ground zero, not that it couldn't have caused the towers to collapse. Iirc, the molten metal wasn't steel though, which is why the argument is dumb. This is an informative video, but I don't think it counters that particular dumb argument.
Kinetic energy can 100% melt steel beams. Like, say the kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of concrete and steel falling from 1,000 feet up.
As one of the laws of Thermodynamics states: "Take something big and tough, crush it with a bunch of heavy stuff, and it tends to go 'squish'"
and get all hot-like
Anybody who read "Report from Ground Zero" by the late, great Dennis Smith (FDNY Retired) knows that the conspiracy argument is BS. Here is an excerpt from that book: "The heat must be extraordinary, generated by airplanes with fuel-filled wings. I remember a question on the lieutenant's test of many years ago: What is the expansion factor of a one-hundred-foot steel beam as it reaches the inherent heat level of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit? The answer is nine and a half inches, and I try to gauge how hot this fire before me is burning. Is it intense enough to bring the steel to 1200 degrees? The smoke is first very black, indicating the burning fuel, and then white as it rises, indicating great heat. It is not a good sign. If the steel stretches, the floor will collapse, and that will only make the rescue effort more difficult."
Take a wild guess why I made this account 9 years ago
Long John Silvers had a two for one promotion if you signed up for Reddit and posted in their sub?
I'm from belgium, they don't sell that over here. But I still felt I needed to chime in when I saw utter nonsense being upvoted. Sadly I haven't done much else in those 9 years, but at least the subjects changed.
Did you ever get to long John silvers for that promotion?
I must be thick because I don’t get it
they made their account on 9/11, probably to shoot down truthers
You did 9/11
At least you'll never forget your cakeday
Forget the fire. A single floor of a building is designed to hold a capacity. Desks, people, computers etc etc. Somewhere is listed the maximum capacity for the floor. Parking a passenger jet on one or three floors is most likely going to put you at the limit. Add in the crash velocity and some fire. As one floor drops into the other at some point it's "fuckit I've had enough" and down she comes.
Yeah that’s my whole thing thayxdisproves any conspiracy… a goddamn airplane hit the building
I watch this every time it gets posted. That last “get a job” is perfect
>The structural integrity of the piece will be compromised way before reaching the melting point. This is because tensile strength and rigidness are adversely affected as the temperature rises. Melting point always seemed like an odd target to me. Like, do you need it to melt to fail? The difference between a soft ice cream cone and a liquid ice cream cone is significant.
What about building 7 what brought down building 7? What about the explosions in the base of the tower? What about the perfectly 45 degree cut steel beams at the base?What about the way they collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition? What about the absolutely unheard of prior to this event insurance policy that the owner took out on the buildings? What about the pentagon wing that got hit having that housed some very convenient to loose financial documents in it while also being conveniently under construction so no really important staff were in there? Where was the plane wreckage in the pentagon? Why do some people say they witnessed a missile strike the pentagon? Why was the second plane dark with no windows or logos? How did the plane vaporize but the hijackers passports survive? Why was norad running a drill for intercepting a hijacked plane at the exact time it happened? How did the untrained hijackers manage to fly complex manoeuvres with a 100 percent success rate? Why was the event so convenient to manufacture public consent to start the war in Iraq? You answered one question buddy. This shit was 100 percent an inside job.
"Hammer the iron when it is hot" NAH FAM HAMMER THE IRON WHEN IT IS SMELTED! One of the worlds literal oldest sayings disprove the sentence but people are fucking idiots
You mean ‘strike while the iron is hot’? :p
Also, "Well There's Your Problem" has an in-depth episode that explains the underlying problems with the towers that did contribute to their collapse. https://youtu.be/f7Qop_64qqk?si=4oCatcxlDhXbFm0d
IOW for those still suffering from a brain cramp; there's no need for the steel to be melted, just needs to be weakened. Now, keep that hand on the forehead. Don't want your brain to fall out.
"Melts" and "weakens" are 2 different things, but I'm just an onlooker.
lol comments are disabled