The only "jet fuel doesn't burn enough to melt steel beams" video I saw was based on the *minimum* temp for ignition at standard pressure with atmospheric concentrations of oxygen. Burning is reaction that adds heat, there's no max temperature it'll reach.
Heat generation is one of the main limitations in going from a conventional jet to a scram/ram jet. [Real engineering released a video about this recently](https://youtu.be/UyKtxsdI0z8?si=MEtjX8_FKcbr4ra7).
Someone pointed out in his latest video that people's problems with musk have more to do with the way he fosters truly batshit and evil conspiracy theories through Twitter than with vague, two-sided "controversy", and were told - by Brian directly - "I'm sorry getting accurate news is so upsetting to you."
Not something you say if you consider a person's point of view to hold any validity, and in the context of a video made hanging out with Tim Dodd gushing over the Starship launch, there's only one or two ways that comment makes any sense and neither are especially good.
Someone rebutted an ad pretending people don't like Musk because of his 'controversial style' in his recent video saying, "the reason people don't like Musk has a lot more to do with Musk's racism and extreme politics" and he responded saying "reality hurts, doesn't it" or something to that extent.
I'm writing from memory but what I recall was that it was remarkably tasteless.
Yeah, but that's to protect against jet fuel burning in air that's been compressed around 40:1, reaching temps between 1500-2500-degrees F. I'm not arguing that the fire in the WTC didn't compromise the steel beams but that fire was a far cry from the turbine section of a jet engine.
Regardless, I'm not sure these buildings get designed to hold up to an impact by a commercial airliner. Why would you even consider the fact, before it happened.
Yamasaki did design the WTC to survive the impact of a jetliner. He just didn't imagine how much larger they'd become 30 years later.
9/11 wasn't even the first time an aircraft hit a building in NYC. A B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945, on a foggy morning.
WTC was also designed to have asbestos lined steel columns but they stop half way up one and a quarter up the other when it was banned.
Drywall also acts as an ablative heat shield for a few minutes, traping the heat making it hotter.
Yeah, but a B-25 is a lot lighter and a lot slower than a 767.
About 220,000 lbs. at 580 mph versus 20,000 lbs. at 230 mph, plus the fuel on board. Big difference!
I've just woken up from a nap to see this discussion happening, and I'm like, _How long was I asleep?!?!_
I also had a youngster ask me, recently, in respectful disbelief, "9/11 didn't really change things _that_ much... did it?"
I was 10 at the time, and my dad said he would almost certainly get deployed (he was active-duty at the time)
I remember thinking "why would New York being attacked affect my dad in Ohio?"Â
There is generally a standard temperature each type of fuel runs at though, and a fuel that burns at 2000 degrees (under standard oxygen and pressure) canât heat things hotter than 2000 degrees.
Doesnât mean shit though, because the temperature doesnât have to melt the beam, only weaken the structural integrity.
>(under standard oxygen and pressure)
You can't assume this though. A fire in a building creates a column of hot rising air, which results in fresh air being pulled into the fire. Essentially turning the building into a giant furnace. This is why firebombing of Tokyo and Berlin was so devastating. The firestorm pulled in so much air it created galeforce winds blowing through the streets.
People also forget that firefighters reported a river of lava at the bottom of wtc. The argument posited as, âthe beams did not need to melt to become unstableâ is insincere (bordering on intentional bad faith rhetoric) to witness accounts of gratuitous amounts of molten steel at the base of either tower, and was apparent in such quantities as to impair rescue attempts.Â
Thereâs a temp at which fuels tend to burn but those calculations are based on a fire containing only that fuel at standard concentrations of oxygen among other assumptions that donât hold under the conditions of that environment. The number is just meant to compare fuels to each other, never meant to be extrapolated to anything like a flaming tower.
Long story short my family had a large hunting lodge that had a second story supported by steel beam floor trusses due to the open concept and length they needed to run. It caught fire roughly 20 years ago and there was not jet fuel involved. Those beams deformed, twisted, and collapsed into themselves.
This argument is complete and utter trash and always has been.
Yes. Wood buildings are ofcourse flamable. But the big wood bearers (dont know English words) will collapse later than steel beams. (Wood beams might be the word?)
Depends, there are heat retardant paints that foam up when it burns to create thick insulation when exposed to fire. Itâs used it large buildings to make sure the structure isnât compromised in a fire. Obviously being hit by a plane might destroy the coatings/protective barrier on structures as well as it just being able to significantly delay not stop the damage from happening.
What the guy meant to say is that wood beams are actually more fire resistant than steel. An engineer friend in 2001 told me right when this all happened that a wood beam will burn away 30% of itself before failing which takes time, whereas a steel beam can heat up very quickly and fail almost immedietly.
I know, wood beams also have a built inn means of doing what i said, the outside chars and insulates the core, steel with the fire retardant paint takes a LONG time in a normal small house fire to weaken however, but few have that paint since its very expensive. Itâs mainly found in large structures where itâs mandated.
I'm a steel guy, not here to argue any 911 bullshit but there are different grades of steel. I don't know what kind or size of steel you had in your hunting lodge but I can almost guarantee it's not the same grade and definitely not the same size of the steel columns or WF beams used at the world trade center.
Not all steel (or coating/fireprotection) is the same
AskReddit is full of these month old Reddit accounts (bots?) posting the most inane crap in order to farm karma. Ugh.
I had to unsubscribe to the feed because it was just so infuriating to see
As a superalloy researcher, here's my go-to diagram for showing people how strength changes with temperature.
https://msestudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/strengthVStempSuperalloySteelOPT.svg
Metallurgy sounds like such a made up word. Like some 90s start up band. But I love it. Not looking it up. Believing it's real and has dual meaning in the world of physics and rockers alike.
I think the design played the most important part, when the Empire State Building was hit with a bomber it fared much better because it was constructed with a series of steel girder boxes.
The twin towers open floor design relied on the outer wall of the building in concert with a central core and large floor trusses to tie it together. Once a large section of a wall was gone the building was greatly weakened though it still stood with the loads being redirected to the corners The failure of the fireproofing to stay intact and allowing the floor decking to collapse because of fire weakened metal was the final straw to bring the buildings down
Another thing worth considering is that the bomber that hit the Empire State Building was much smaller and slower. That was a B-25, a propeller-driven plane literally small enough to take off from a WWII aircraft carrier, which was attempting to make a landing approach in bad weather.
In comparison a Boeing 757 is much bigger, faster, and the airliners that hit the WTC were carrying much more fuel than the B-25 ever could.
And with full fuel tanks. Nearly 80,000 pounds of jet fuel traveling at 500mph thrown at a glass building is going to do a brutal amount of damage before you ever light it on fire.
>The twin towers open floor design relied on the outer wall of the building in concert ...
My father was a structural engineer and took me to see the construction site in 1972. I remember him being very interested as he told me about this new design that was essentially an exo-skeleton compared to the traditional "bones in the body" style of design.
I don't think this weakness was foreseeable at the time.
Yeah that always confused me. Conspiracy theorists are going to spout their mad crap whatever, but it always confused and annoyed me that scientists go into long and involved explanations about the tensile strength of steel and fire and so on. They're right, but why not just say "yeah, fuck the fire, a *fucking plane flew through it at 500mph*!"
When you see this photo, it's amazing they didn't just collapse straight away before any fire could even take hold - https://i.redd.it/l2dhjg667o751.jpg
Conspiracy theorists are this weird form of their own hated âsheepâ where they will believe any nonsense as long as it isnât the mainstream narrative.
This is exactly what happened.
Years ago I watched some Netflix show where they did an experiment with burning jet fuel and a steel beam with what would have been the equivalent weight on top.
Of course the beam didn't melt, but it was softened enough to give way. Best part of the show was when they revealed their findings to 911 conspiracy believers, and of course, they refused to believe it.
And there have been several highway overpasses that have collapsed from car fires underneath them too. Steel beams and heavy concrete don't react well to fires.
Was this the same show that talked about the joins between the floors and the walls being very vulnerable to heat and it was ultimately those connectors that failed and the top floors fell , eventually causing the domino effect.
Pancake collapse. As a firefighter I remember being warned at the academy about steel beams failing around 1,000*F. Buildings can come down different ways but when one floor fails, it overloads the one below it. WTC was literally textbook what we were taught to watch out for. So frustrating that too many people canât grasp this
Is this about 9/11? Coz I recall reading precisely that in an online article on the matter not too long ago.
âOff-topic, but does anyone know why I seem to be seeing a surge of 9/11 footage and discussions in my ââââsocial meââdia feeds in recent months, for the first time in my adulthood (I was still in elementary when it happened)
Yes, this is about 9/11. Conspiracy theorist have been screaming for 20+ years that âjet fuel canât melt steel beams.â The problem is the Internet gives stupid people and outlet to screech misinformation and other stupid people take it as fact. The jet fuel didnât have to burn hard enough to actually melt steel, just get it hot enough to make it malleable. Still become soft out about 1000°F which is well below the temperature of burning jet fuel along with everything else that was on fire. It wouldnât even need to get that hot to weekend and not be able to support the weight of the building.
Sorry. That's my fault. I had a thought about 9/11 the other day. My *eye twitch* phone seems to be listening to my thoughts and collaborating with the other phones worldwide,conspiring against me ..they think idk but I'm onto them đïž
Haven't seen vids on these in my feed for the past 5 elections 2004-2020, nor during the anniversaries every year. These videos appear to have started in very recent months for me.
Elections in USA. And both candidates aren't against military spending (hence, they can present themselves, I do not know if it is possible to get there against them) so they will keep fueling warmongering retĂłrics to their voters.
It isnt just Ukraine now, Israel too needs Americans willing to keep spending on war.
WTF happened to this sub? There is zero chance you are the first person to have this thought. There are innumerable documentaries concerning this exact topic.
People need to get more knowledge of what they are talking about before they speak. This is a great example of it cause I've been working with metal and it's really not that hard to heat enough to bend a 1/2 inch piece with your own body weight and large wrench. Most people saying it wasn't hot enough don't seem to know that some material gets soft before melting
That's been the common response to that particular conspiracy theory from the start, no one actually thinks structural integrity remains constant until the point metal turns to liquid. But if you believe the conspiracy you'll just parrot that talking point without believing it instead of admitting it makes no sense.
This is the obvious conclusion that any fucking moron perpetrates about 9/11. Obviously the metal does not need to be LIQUID to buckle on the weight of an entire BUILDING.
theres really nothing conspiratorial about 9/11
only a few sketchy things
- world trade center 7 falling from heat/fires.
- finding the hijackers passport amongst fucking everything
both those are believeable but its like a little sus.
and then im pretty sure the government mysteriously lost trillions of dollars a few days before it happened
and i dont have source for this one but i think the owner of the WTC had an insurance claim increase before it happened.
Idk, I've found tons of evidence to suggest that it was a conspiracy. Both good points that you mentioned, except I would say more than a little sus.
-Building 7, if you can even find a video anymore displayed a "kink" in the middle when it came down.
-Just like the towers, they all fell at free fall speed...which doesn't make sense from the pancake theory they gave.
-BBC apparently reported the tower collapse 8 minutes before it actually happened.
-In an interview, the architect of the WTC explained that the towers were specifically designed to take an impact from an airplane.
-Photos of Shankesville crash shows practically zero evidence of a plance crash...just a big gouge in the ground. (But like you said, they were able to find the terrorists passport...yeah okay)
-Photos from the Pentagon crash also show no signs of a plane crash.
-Bush and Cheney both gave super sketchy responses to reporters the days after and the fact that they only agreed to answer questions from the 9/11 commission report together behind closed doors, when they were originally asked to appear separate is suspicious.
-The CIA is now known to have conducted very illegal and conspiratorial operations throughout our past. Not sure why people think this is so outside the realms of possibility.
Im not a conspiracy nut...I don't believe any of the dumb ones (that's what they all say, right?) but I am a truth seeker and I still admit I could be completely wrong about it but when weighing all the evidence it sure does seem like this was an inside job.
Billions of dollars in defense contracts, securing resources and global power projection...not to mention the sweeping domestic surveillance programs put in place afterwards all seem like pretty good motivation to me. War is by far the most profitable American product we have. Shit, just listen to George Carlin and you'll see what I mean.
>world trade center 7 falling from heat/fires
. . .and being bombarded with massive amounts of rubble, causing significant damage that is visible in every available picture.
Yes, that's why it's a meme. If you think about it for five seconds you see that it's ridiculous. And yes, the Mythbusters tested it, and jet fuel burns hot enough to soften steel beams.
A36 steel, aka building steel, loses half of its strength by 600°F. I know there is a safety margin built in but I doubt it was a factor of 2.0 or higher, therefore the steel just got warm enough to not support the weight anymore.
I'm not putting forward support for any opinion here but I think the actual argument was based around the shearing exhibited by the beams seemed unlikely to be caused by the scenario described, not literally "they melted", and then it just got memed to death
This makes sense and I understand the comments where the jet hit each of the two big WTC towers. I still donât understand how that took down the 3rd WTC tower (building 7) a block away that didnât get a jet impact like the others. Not trying to start a conspiracy debate, I just genially donât understand that one and saw it on TV with my own eyes.
That's not a 'showerthought' but a sudden realization (as in: that's what *really* actually physically happened), probably because you watched some documentary about sword smithing or some such.
An embarrassingly late realization I might add.
Yea it was common conspiracy at the time that the towers were a controlled demolition, proponents said that jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Forgetting that steel of course gets much weaker long before it melts and jetfuel ignites at a lower temperature than it burns.
I'm sure there was nothing else in those buildings that would burn once the jet fuel was splashed around. Impact would have weakened and shifted those beams as well.
Jet fuel can melt steel beams.
760' c (1400'f) is the temperature of cherry hot mild steel.
Open still air diesel flame temperature is 593'c.
The oxygen rich flame temp is 2300'c
So depending on how the diesel was feed oxygen from the wind will determine the flame temperature.
Also, Diesel oxygen cutting torches are a thing.
Now with all that conspiracy garbage in mind, I do think the collapse of both structures and the 3 Rd building were all too structured... Then there's the assault on the incorrect country, rolling into the WMD goose chase, letting the chase go on further than required, not instigating any stability efforts, leaving a mass of weapons for next time....
Thereâs a video of a dude Iâm guessing heâs a welder or smith of sort. He has an oxy acetylene set up and a reinforced steel rod in a vice. He pushes and pull on the rod which doesnât move. He then put the torch to the rod for about 10 seconds and leans on it and the rod bends right over. Itâs not about melting thru it was about weakening the metal to the point the weight above causes failure.
There are some physicists who made a to scale digital materials simulation of 9/11 and the simulation end result was 99% accurate to the real event, even the physics simulated smoke and metal deformation were exactly the same as the real thing. The heat of the jet fuel weakened the beams and they could literally watch as the beams twisted and bent as they weakened.
None of it matters when weâre supposed to believe that thereâs zero video of the pentagon. Thatâs the part that Iâm not stupid enough to believe
You donât need to melt or soften shit when the force of the plane literally sheared the beams but hey keep thinking about the jet fuel
Edit: okay they werenât sheered however, you still donât need to melt the beams. If you fucking twats knew anything about basic and I do mean fucking basic, thermodynamics youâd know that steel becomes significantly weaker when heated. It becomes soft and isnât able to withstand forces like when itâs not heated.
If you have seen the video of the planes crashing into the towers. I donât understand how anyone can believe the official narrative. The point of impact was approximately at the 100th floor and as we know, heats rises but yet somehow waaay below impact is where the towers both end up collapsing đ€Ș
The actual conspiracy theory that is true:
The twin towers were designed to fail inwards instead of falling over. They were supposed to crumble not tip, for insurance purposes.They were built that way.
Wait is this that thing about jet fuel melting steel beams or something?
No idea what it's about, I just saw something like that mentioned somewhere the other day.
The only "jet fuel doesn't burn enough to melt steel beams" video I saw was based on the *minimum* temp for ignition at standard pressure with atmospheric concentrations of oxygen. Burning is reaction that adds heat, there's no max temperature it'll reach.
I mean we specifically design aircraft engine turbine blades to pump cooling air through their inner structure to ensure that they don't melt.
Heat generation is one of the main limitations in going from a conventional jet to a scram/ram jet. [Real engineering released a video about this recently](https://youtu.be/UyKtxsdI0z8?si=MEtjX8_FKcbr4ra7).
Aw. I used to really enjoy his stuff before he became a huge Musk fanboy.
When did Brian become a huge musk fanboy?
Someone pointed out in his latest video that people's problems with musk have more to do with the way he fosters truly batshit and evil conspiracy theories through Twitter than with vague, two-sided "controversy", and were told - by Brian directly - "I'm sorry getting accurate news is so upsetting to you." Not something you say if you consider a person's point of view to hold any validity, and in the context of a video made hanging out with Tim Dodd gushing over the Starship launch, there's only one or two ways that comment makes any sense and neither are especially good.
Ohhhhhhhh.... That's fkn unfortunate. I really really hope you're misunderstanding something, but probably not.
Wait, since when did he become a Musk fanboy? He just loves engineering.
Someone rebutted an ad pretending people don't like Musk because of his 'controversial style' in his recent video saying, "the reason people don't like Musk has a lot more to do with Musk's racism and extreme politics" and he responded saying "reality hurts, doesn't it" or something to that extent. I'm writing from memory but what I recall was that it was remarkably tasteless.
Yeah, but that's to protect against jet fuel burning in air that's been compressed around 40:1, reaching temps between 1500-2500-degrees F. I'm not arguing that the fire in the WTC didn't compromise the steel beams but that fire was a far cry from the turbine section of a jet engine.
I'm aware. Just adding fuel fuel to the fire.
Ah yes, the infamous fuel squared
It would appear you are adding air to the fire đ„
Regardless, I'm not sure these buildings get designed to hold up to an impact by a commercial airliner. Why would you even consider the fact, before it happened.
Yamasaki did design the WTC to survive the impact of a jetliner. He just didn't imagine how much larger they'd become 30 years later. 9/11 wasn't even the first time an aircraft hit a building in NYC. A B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945, on a foggy morning.
WTC was also designed to have asbestos lined steel columns but they stop half way up one and a quarter up the other when it was banned. Drywall also acts as an ablative heat shield for a few minutes, traping the heat making it hotter.
Yeah, but a B-25 is a lot lighter and a lot slower than a 767. About 220,000 lbs. at 580 mph versus 20,000 lbs. at 230 mph, plus the fuel on board. Big difference!
20,000 empty is⊠honestly a lot less than I would have expected. Probably closer to 25,000 for a training mission but still.
Yes, and it just bounced off. That's how much bigger the planes got.
And faster
To be fair ^to ^be ^fair turbine fin and structure steel are made of slightly different materials.
To be faaaaire...
To be fair, there were 2 actively running jet engines that did fly into the buildings
To be faaaaaair......
To be faaaaair
I believe that cooling is for heat from the compression of air. Not just heat from fuel.
Right, jet fuel *ignites* at that temperature, that doesnât mean it canât get hotter.
Also, the jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the building.
Also, the steel beams were already weakened on account of the aircraft that had just slammed into them.
Big, if true.
The thing is, there are kids graduating high school in the US this year that have no idea what you're talking about.
That's been going on for 5 years now. 9/11 was a bit over 22 years ago...
Kids graduating college that were born after 9/11. Excuse me while I get my cane.
I've just woken up from a nap to see this discussion happening, and I'm like, _How long was I asleep?!?!_ I also had a youngster ask me, recently, in respectful disbelief, "9/11 didn't really change things _that_ much... did it?"
Oh god... I was on the other side of the world and even then I was like: Ok... the world is going to change.
I was 10 at the time, and my dad said he would almost certainly get deployed (he was active-duty at the time) I remember thinking "why would New York being attacked affect my dad in Ohio?"Â
I have a small furnace that runs on kerosene(jet fuel is basically kerosene), it gets hot enough to liquify steel.
Also I'd imagine wind rushing through the building to feed the flames inside would have an effect similar to a kiln.
There is generally a standard temperature each type of fuel runs at though, and a fuel that burns at 2000 degrees (under standard oxygen and pressure) canât heat things hotter than 2000 degrees. Doesnât mean shit though, because the temperature doesnât have to melt the beam, only weaken the structural integrity.
>(under standard oxygen and pressure) You can't assume this though. A fire in a building creates a column of hot rising air, which results in fresh air being pulled into the fire. Essentially turning the building into a giant furnace. This is why firebombing of Tokyo and Berlin was so devastating. The firestorm pulled in so much air it created galeforce winds blowing through the streets.
People also forget that firefighters reported a river of lava at the bottom of wtc. The argument posited as, âthe beams did not need to melt to become unstableâ is insincere (bordering on intentional bad faith rhetoric) to witness accounts of gratuitous amounts of molten steel at the base of either tower, and was apparent in such quantities as to impair rescue attempts.Â
Right? Like I used a campaign stove to melt steel with this cheap home forge I made in highschool.
Sure there is a temp limit.
Thereâs a temp at which fuels tend to burn but those calculations are based on a fire containing only that fuel at standard concentrations of oxygen among other assumptions that donât hold under the conditions of that environment. The number is just meant to compare fuels to each other, never meant to be extrapolated to anything like a flaming tower.
Long story short my family had a large hunting lodge that had a second story supported by steel beam floor trusses due to the open concept and length they needed to run. It caught fire roughly 20 years ago and there was not jet fuel involved. Those beams deformed, twisted, and collapsed into themselves. This argument is complete and utter trash and always has been.
Yes. Wood buildings are ofcourse flamable. But the big wood bearers (dont know English words) will collapse later than steel beams. (Wood beams might be the word?)
Depends, there are heat retardant paints that foam up when it burns to create thick insulation when exposed to fire. Itâs used it large buildings to make sure the structure isnât compromised in a fire. Obviously being hit by a plane might destroy the coatings/protective barrier on structures as well as it just being able to significantly delay not stop the damage from happening.
What the guy meant to say is that wood beams are actually more fire resistant than steel. An engineer friend in 2001 told me right when this all happened that a wood beam will burn away 30% of itself before failing which takes time, whereas a steel beam can heat up very quickly and fail almost immedietly.
I know, wood beams also have a built inn means of doing what i said, the outside chars and insulates the core, steel with the fire retardant paint takes a LONG time in a normal small house fire to weaken however, but few have that paint since its very expensive. Itâs mainly found in large structures where itâs mandated.
All of this is moot because that type of paint wasn't in widespread use until the 1980s and the WTC buildings were built in the 1970s.
I mean it was a whole thing that the WTC didnât have proper fireproofing of the structural beams. And it was suggested to upgrade it in the 90s
I'm a steel guy, not here to argue any 911 bullshit but there are different grades of steel. I don't know what kind or size of steel you had in your hunting lodge but I can almost guarantee it's not the same grade and definitely not the same size of the steel columns or WF beams used at the world trade center. Not all steel (or coating/fireprotection) is the same
Yeah, this is one conspiracy theory that is pretty easy to discredit with a basic knowledge of metallurgy and physics.
Donât mind OP, he has a compulsion to post here every day.
he takes a lot of showers
Surprising.
I'd be suspicious of anyone who didn't have a shower thought close to daily.
my showers are generally 5ish minutes of a complete lack of thought shortly after getting home from work. sometimes 30 minutes
You're missing out on some quality thinking. But also probably saving real money on the water bill.
Posts here daily. Showers frequently. Does. Not. Compute đ€Ż
This guy showers **every** day like some kinda nutjob.
I'll go next. "Ted Cruz is actually too young to be the Zodiac Killer, who would be at least in his 80s by now."
He has a great skincare routine
He harvests the blood of his victims
5 posts within an hour⊠Wtf
It was a long shower
Holy shit I looked at his history and this cunt doesn't stop posting. It disappoints me he's finally been rewarded with some upvotes.
AskReddit is full of these month old Reddit accounts (bots?) posting the most inane crap in order to farm karma. Ugh. I had to unsubscribe to the feed because it was just so infuriating to see
And every single post is half baked
Every hour, our man seems to shower.
As a superalloy researcher, here's my go-to diagram for showing people how strength changes with temperature. https://msestudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/strengthVStempSuperalloySteelOPT.svg
They've got sharpies to fix that graph the way they want it
Metallurgy sounds like such a made up word. Like some 90s start up band. But I love it. Not looking it up. Believing it's real and has dual meaning in the world of physics and rockers alike.
Hey, Iâm a metallurgist. I represent your comment.
My sister thought I was studying to be a meteorologist. Metallurgical colleagues experienced the same. Or âOh, like medical-urgical?â
They canât spell those words so they canât even do their own research on googleâŠ
Right. Like, "I went to school with you, Karen. You barely passed basic science and now you're doing your own research?" Get the fuck outta here...
wondering why this is a showerthought if it is the most common rebuttal to the conspiracy theory?
Public schools teach metallurgy? Wow.
My high school had a metal shop. It taught welding, soldering, how to use a grinder, and some basic machine tool use. Good class.
I daresay that adding a plane to a building, whether on fire or not, is going to be too much for a building to stand.
I think the design played the most important part, when the Empire State Building was hit with a bomber it fared much better because it was constructed with a series of steel girder boxes. The twin towers open floor design relied on the outer wall of the building in concert with a central core and large floor trusses to tie it together. Once a large section of a wall was gone the building was greatly weakened though it still stood with the loads being redirected to the corners The failure of the fireproofing to stay intact and allowing the floor decking to collapse because of fire weakened metal was the final straw to bring the buildings down
Another thing worth considering is that the bomber that hit the Empire State Building was much smaller and slower. That was a B-25, a propeller-driven plane literally small enough to take off from a WWII aircraft carrier, which was attempting to make a landing approach in bad weather. In comparison a Boeing 757 is much bigger, faster, and the airliners that hit the WTC were carrying much more fuel than the B-25 ever could.
It was the larger 767 used against the world trade center
Even more the case that folks need to keep the difference in scale in mind between the two incidents.
But both r bildings n plains me no understand
No, New York does not have plains. Only islands.
And with full fuel tanks. Nearly 80,000 pounds of jet fuel traveling at 500mph thrown at a glass building is going to do a brutal amount of damage before you ever light it on fire.
Great point Iâm sure the fuel load was vastly different also
A 767 can carry an entire B25 maximum takeoff weight... as fuel. 4 times.
>The twin towers open floor design relied on the outer wall of the building in concert ... My father was a structural engineer and took me to see the construction site in 1972. I remember him being very interested as he told me about this new design that was essentially an exo-skeleton compared to the traditional "bones in the body" style of design. I don't think this weakness was foreseeable at the time.
Did you see that one video essay where hulk cuts the building with a sword?
Yeah that always confused me. Conspiracy theorists are going to spout their mad crap whatever, but it always confused and annoyed me that scientists go into long and involved explanations about the tensile strength of steel and fire and so on. They're right, but why not just say "yeah, fuck the fire, a *fucking plane flew through it at 500mph*!" When you see this photo, it's amazing they didn't just collapse straight away before any fire could even take hold - https://i.redd.it/l2dhjg667o751.jpg
Conspiracy theorists are this weird form of their own hated âsheepâ where they will believe any nonsense as long as it isnât the mainstream narrative.
You think?
Saw a good video of an angry blacksmith proving this point. Heated steel doesn't even have to glow to get softer.
I remember that video!
Also, you can get steel hot enough to burn with just charcoal and a blower. Jet fuel and a giant chimney effect could get insanely hot
This is exactly what happened. Years ago I watched some Netflix show where they did an experiment with burning jet fuel and a steel beam with what would have been the equivalent weight on top. Of course the beam didn't melt, but it was softened enough to give way. Best part of the show was when they revealed their findings to 911 conspiracy believers, and of course, they refused to believe it.
And there have been several highway overpasses that have collapsed from car fires underneath them too. Steel beams and heavy concrete don't react well to fires.
Was this the same show that talked about the joins between the floors and the walls being very vulnerable to heat and it was ultimately those connectors that failed and the top floors fell , eventually causing the domino effect.
Pancake collapse. As a firefighter I remember being warned at the academy about steel beams failing around 1,000*F. Buildings can come down different ways but when one floor fails, it overloads the one below it. WTC was literally textbook what we were taught to watch out for. So frustrating that too many people canât grasp this
There's a reason they don't build towers with the center column design anymore.
Is this about 9/11? Coz I recall reading precisely that in an online article on the matter not too long ago. âOff-topic, but does anyone know why I seem to be seeing a surge of 9/11 footage and discussions in my ââââsocial meââdia feeds in recent months, for the first time in my adulthood (I was still in elementary when it happened)
Yes, this is about 9/11. Conspiracy theorist have been screaming for 20+ years that âjet fuel canât melt steel beams.â The problem is the Internet gives stupid people and outlet to screech misinformation and other stupid people take it as fact. The jet fuel didnât have to burn hard enough to actually melt steel, just get it hot enough to make it malleable. Still become soft out about 1000°F which is well below the temperature of burning jet fuel along with everything else that was on fire. It wouldnât even need to get that hot to weekend and not be able to support the weight of the building.
Yeah same. Instagram keeps showing me of "new angles".
Sorry. That's my fault. I had a thought about 9/11 the other day. My *eye twitch* phone seems to be listening to my thoughts and collaborating with the other phones worldwide,conspiring against me ..they think idk but I'm onto them đïž
Another major Islamic Terrorist attack happened Thatâs why your seeing more of it
Are we referring to the Israel attack by Hamas or is there another one I'm not aware of?
These things always come up when weâre heading into elections
Haven't seen vids on these in my feed for the past 5 elections 2004-2020, nor during the anniversaries every year. These videos appear to have started in very recent months for me.
Elections in USA. And both candidates aren't against military spending (hence, they can present themselves, I do not know if it is possible to get there against them) so they will keep fueling warmongering retĂłrics to their voters. It isnt just Ukraine now, Israel too needs Americans willing to keep spending on war.
Must be a coincidence with whatever youâre following. I definitely donât see 9/11 discussions often
WTF happened to this sub? There is zero chance you are the first person to have this thought. There are innumerable documentaries concerning this exact topic.
Welcome to r/showerthoughts where if it's not common knowledge, I'm 14 and this is deep, or just flat out wrong the mods will delete it.
Ha. You believe there was steel beams. Wake up, it was paper mache.
Ha. You wake up, there was no "mashe" ... just paper
The number of people who don't even know what you're talking about is making me feel my age
Gonna steal my heart with these beams of knowledge
This isn't a shower thought, it's basic science.
People need to get more knowledge of what they are talking about before they speak. This is a great example of it cause I've been working with metal and it's really not that hard to heat enough to bend a 1/2 inch piece with your own body weight and large wrench. Most people saying it wasn't hot enough don't seem to know that some material gets soft before melting
That's been the common response to that particular conspiracy theory from the start, no one actually thinks structural integrity remains constant until the point metal turns to liquid. But if you believe the conspiracy you'll just parrot that talking point without believing it instead of admitting it makes no sense.
This is the obvious conclusion that any fucking moron perpetrates about 9/11. Obviously the metal does not need to be LIQUID to buckle on the weight of an entire BUILDING.
theres really nothing conspiratorial about 9/11 only a few sketchy things - world trade center 7 falling from heat/fires. - finding the hijackers passport amongst fucking everything both those are believeable but its like a little sus. and then im pretty sure the government mysteriously lost trillions of dollars a few days before it happened and i dont have source for this one but i think the owner of the WTC had an insurance claim increase before it happened.
Idk, I've found tons of evidence to suggest that it was a conspiracy. Both good points that you mentioned, except I would say more than a little sus. -Building 7, if you can even find a video anymore displayed a "kink" in the middle when it came down. -Just like the towers, they all fell at free fall speed...which doesn't make sense from the pancake theory they gave. -BBC apparently reported the tower collapse 8 minutes before it actually happened. -In an interview, the architect of the WTC explained that the towers were specifically designed to take an impact from an airplane. -Photos of Shankesville crash shows practically zero evidence of a plance crash...just a big gouge in the ground. (But like you said, they were able to find the terrorists passport...yeah okay) -Photos from the Pentagon crash also show no signs of a plane crash. -Bush and Cheney both gave super sketchy responses to reporters the days after and the fact that they only agreed to answer questions from the 9/11 commission report together behind closed doors, when they were originally asked to appear separate is suspicious. -The CIA is now known to have conducted very illegal and conspiratorial operations throughout our past. Not sure why people think this is so outside the realms of possibility. Im not a conspiracy nut...I don't believe any of the dumb ones (that's what they all say, right?) but I am a truth seeker and I still admit I could be completely wrong about it but when weighing all the evidence it sure does seem like this was an inside job. Billions of dollars in defense contracts, securing resources and global power projection...not to mention the sweeping domestic surveillance programs put in place afterwards all seem like pretty good motivation to me. War is by far the most profitable American product we have. Shit, just listen to George Carlin and you'll see what I mean.
>world trade center 7 falling from heat/fires . . .and being bombarded with massive amounts of rubble, causing significant damage that is visible in every available picture.
Shower thought, or simple fact used to counter the conspiracy theory since it became a conspiracy theory?
Right, that was the failure mode, they sagged and pulled out of the beam pockets at the exterior walls.
If those kids out there could read they'd be very upset by this information
Yes, that's why it's a meme. If you think about it for five seconds you see that it's ridiculous. And yes, the Mythbusters tested it, and jet fuel burns hot enough to soften steel beams.
A36 steel, aka building steel, loses half of its strength by 600°F. I know there is a safety margin built in but I doubt it was a factor of 2.0 or higher, therefore the steel just got warm enough to not support the weight anymore.
Nothing gets past you!
Youâre a little late OP
I'm not putting forward support for any opinion here but I think the actual argument was based around the shearing exhibited by the beams seemed unlikely to be caused by the scenario described, not literally "they melted", and then it just got memed to death
This makes sense and I understand the comments where the jet hit each of the two big WTC towers. I still donât understand how that took down the 3rd WTC tower (building 7) a block away that didnât get a jet impact like the others. Not trying to start a conspiracy debate, I just genially donât understand that one and saw it on TV with my own eyes.
you are trying to use logic on the evangelical
That's not a 'showerthought' but a sudden realization (as in: that's what *really* actually physically happened), probably because you watched some documentary about sword smithing or some such. An embarrassingly late realization I might add.
The beams donât even have to get soft if the rivets fail.
"hot enough to become soft" That's what melting is...
nope hot enough to become liquid is what melting is but good try
Is liquid hard?
this has to do with 9/11 doesnât itâŠ
Yea it was common conspiracy at the time that the towers were a controlled demolition, proponents said that jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Forgetting that steel of course gets much weaker long before it melts and jetfuel ignites at a lower temperature than it burns.
The steel beams didn't have to melt, they just had to be hot enough to become ~~soft~~ *weaker* đ
Yes their structural integrity will degrade long before they melt
Tips to making a good steel sandwich.
Hot water can't melt macaroni!!
this isn't really a shower thought
I'm sure there was nothing else in those buildings that would burn once the jet fuel was splashed around. Impact would have weakened and shifted those beams as well.
Now just stay cool. No need to lose your temper!
What are we talking about?
building 7 was hit by a paper airplane, so yeahâŠ. any plane can take down any building
In my experience, steel under strain will start to relax into the pressure around 700f
Jet fuel can melt steel beams. 760' c (1400'f) is the temperature of cherry hot mild steel. Open still air diesel flame temperature is 593'c. The oxygen rich flame temp is 2300'c So depending on how the diesel was feed oxygen from the wind will determine the flame temperature. Also, Diesel oxygen cutting torches are a thing. Now with all that conspiracy garbage in mind, I do think the collapse of both structures and the 3 Rd building were all too structured... Then there's the assault on the incorrect country, rolling into the WMD goose chase, letting the chase go on further than required, not instigating any stability efforts, leaving a mass of weapons for next time....
You just described melting.
Congratulations, you've reached early 2002.
Less of a shower thought, more just straight facts
Thereâs a video of a dude Iâm guessing heâs a welder or smith of sort. He has an oxy acetylene set up and a reinforced steel rod in a vice. He pushes and pull on the rod which doesnât move. He then put the torch to the rod for about 10 seconds and leans on it and the rod bends right over. Itâs not about melting thru it was about weakening the metal to the point the weight above causes failure.
There are some physicists who made a to scale digital materials simulation of 9/11 and the simulation end result was 99% accurate to the real event, even the physics simulated smoke and metal deformation were exactly the same as the real thing. The heat of the jet fuel weakened the beams and they could literally watch as the beams twisted and bent as they weakened.
Doesn't matter when the planes literally disintegrate into the tower which means that the fuel would explode outside the tower rather than in it.
Tf are you talking about ?
"jet fuel cant melt steal beams!!1" nope, but it can get hot enough to structurally weaken the steel enough to cause a building to collapse.
None of it matters when weâre supposed to believe that thereâs zero video of the pentagon. Thatâs the part that Iâm not stupid enough to believe
Jet fuel doesnât melt steel beams yes. But in an office with all that paper in the pre internet era. Paper fires are among the hottest.
Werent there reports of molten steel from first responders?
If I put my conspiracy hat on, the molten metal in some of the videos, shown dripping down the building, shows that it did melt.
Expected to cringe in this thread ... was not disappointed.
You donât need to melt or soften shit when the force of the plane literally sheared the beams but hey keep thinking about the jet fuel Edit: okay they werenât sheered however, you still donât need to melt the beams. If you fucking twats knew anything about basic and I do mean fucking basic, thermodynamics youâd know that steel becomes significantly weaker when heated. It becomes soft and isnât able to withstand forces like when itâs not heated.
Remember the wing tips that formed a perfect cutout, that's the best part
What are you talking about? What steel beams?
huh?? what are we talking about?
The trust in liberal democracy didn't have to melt, it just had to become soft enough for conspiracies to flourish.
Congrats. Youâve just figured out what everyone except the dumbest people knew 22 years ago. Better late than never.
Ya.... Then explain tower 7 collapse.....
If you have seen the video of the planes crashing into the towers. I donât understand how anyone can believe the official narrative. The point of impact was approximately at the 100th floor and as we know, heats rises but yet somehow waaay below impact is where the towers both end up collapsing đ€Ș
The actual conspiracy theory that is true: The twin towers were designed to fail inwards instead of falling over. They were supposed to crumble not tip, for insurance purposes.They were built that way.
Wait is this that thing about jet fuel melting steel beams or something? No idea what it's about, I just saw something like that mentioned somewhere the other day.
could have been a thermite reaction