9/11

[Lockdownn]

You do know that buildings don't just poof into dust right?

Even if jet fuel could melt steel it the quantity of it surely could not of destroyed the entire skeleton.

Have you seen any failed demolition videos? A building would tip over not turning to dust but staying intact.

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

[Alyakia]

The towers didn't turn into dust, they turned into rubble. There's pictures of it everywhere.

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

it doesn't need to melt, it needs to weaken. this requires temperatures below metling.

the controlled demolition thing is dumb because that doesn't explain the problem you think exists.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

Or because a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building and greatly weakened it, but hey. Who needs logic amirite?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

what is there to disprove?

are we seriously fucking doing this?

Yes. Unless you prefer my theory that the first plane was a military jet and the second plane was a bunch of college kids being stupid.

Military jets aren't designed to carry people on. Military transport aircraft you're looking at.

Seriously. I mean fucking seriously.

I can't even explain how utterly stupid this idea is.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

They hit it with a plane. A bullet doesn't stop being a bullet just because it's cold out.

[Librica]

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

Pretty sure that maximum take off weight of a commercial jet liner is less than 50 tons... I wonder how it got the extra 50+ tons after leaving the ground.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

Did you even read a word I fucking said. Or more or less what you said.

No, good.

Steel beams do not have to melt. They can soften by heat and collapse.

God what kind of chemistry class am I teaching. Want me to go over the fucking periodic table and point out steel and show you everything I can?

[Lockdownn]

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

It's almost like you forgot that that statistic doesn't matter. That alone combined with the weak aluminum structure of the plane would only have damaged the building slightly with the result of the fire.

In the case that you are right, only the area affected by the hit of the plane should have toppled over.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

Pretty sure that maximum take off weight of a commercial jet liner is less than 50 tons... I wonder how it got the extra 50+ tons after leaving the ground.

Sorry, was thinking of a 747. The 767 weighs something like 330,000+ pounds but I'm not sure what that is in tonnage off the top of my head.

Still more than enough to weaken a building.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

They hit it with a plane. A bullet doesn't stop being a bullet just because it's cold out.

The plane did not have much to do with the destruction itself. The building was structured to be designed to resist 30x the weight of aircraft.

[Farsview]

The towers didn't turn into dust, they turned into rubble. There's pictures of it everywhere.

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

According to Wikipedia (not the best source, but deal with it):
Carbon Steel melts at around 1000–1500 °F
Jet fuel burns at a maximum temperature of 1,890 °F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

[Lockdownn]

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

They hit it with a plane. A bullet doesn't stop being a bullet just because it's cold out.

And?

[Alyakia]

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

It's almost like you forgot that that statistic doesn't matter. That alone combined with the weak aluminum structure of the plane would only have damaged the building slightly with the result of the fire.

In the case that you are right, only the area affected by the hit of the plane should have toppled over.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Pretty sure that maximum take off weight of a commercial jet liner is less than 50 tons... I wonder how it got the extra 50+ tons after leaving the ground.

Sorry, was thinking of a 747. The 767 weighs something like 330,000+ pounds but I'm not sure what that is in tonnage off the top of my head.

Still more than enough to weaken a building.

They hit it with a plane. A bullet doesn't stop being a bullet just because it's cold out.

The plane did not have much to do with the destruction itself. The building was structured to be designed to resist 30x the weight of aircraft.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

It's almost like you forgot that that statistic doesn't matter. That alone combined with the weak aluminum structure of the plane would only have damaged the building slightly with the result of the fire.

In the case that you are right, only the area affected by the hit of the plane should have toppled over.

50 tons of feathers moving at 345 miles per hour is still 50 tons moving at 345 miles per hour. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

[Farnhamia]

It's almost like you forgot a 100 ton plane had slammed into the building.

Pretty sure that maximum take off weight of a commercial jet liner is less than 50 tons... I wonder how it got the extra 50+ tons after leaving the ground.

The Boeing 767 can have a takeoff weight of 400,000 pounds (185,000 kg).

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

It's almost like you forgot that that statistic doesn't matter. That alone combined with the weak aluminum structure of the plane would only have damaged the building slightly with the result of the fire.

In the case that you are right, only the area affected by the hit of the plane should have toppled over.

50 tons of feathers moving at 345 miles per hour is still 50 tons moving at 345 miles per hour. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

They hit it with a plane. A bullet doesn't stop being a bullet just because it's cold out.

The plane did not have much to do with the destruction itself. The building was structured to be designed to resist 30x the weight of aircraft.

Holy shit it's like we know what we're talking about. not.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Sorry, was thinking of a 747. The 767 weighs something like 330,000+ pounds but I'm not sure what that is in tonnage off the top of my head.

Still more than enough to weaken a building.

The plane did not have much to do with the destruction itself. The building was structured to be designed to resist 30x the weight of aircraft.

If it was just sitting on it its weight would be the force it would apply. Crashing into it at full speed is hundreds of times that amount of force.

[Lockdownn]

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

Did you even read a word I fucking said. Or more or less what you said.

No, good.

Steel beams do not have to melt. They can soften by heat and collapse.

God what kind of chemistry class am I teaching. Want me to go over the fucking periodic table and point out steel and show you everything I can?

How on earth did that fuel spread all across the building then? In reality if what you say is true then a partial collapse is all we should've saw.

It's almost like you forgot that that statistic doesn't matter. That alone combined with the weak aluminum structure of the plane would only have damaged the building slightly with the result of the fire.

In the case that you are right, only the area affected by the hit of the plane should have toppled over.

50 tons of feathers moving at 345 miles per hour is still 50 tons moving at 345 miles per hour. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

The effects depends on what kind of structure it hits.

[Rusozak]

Oh dear, the "truthers vs science" debate has started again.

[Alyakia]

The towers didn't turn into dust, they turned into rubble. There's pictures of it everywhere.

It collapsed literally into dust as if it were a controlled demolition. How the fuck does burning jet fuel which burns significantly less hotter then the needed temp to melt steel somehow compromise that structure?

https://youtu.be/fhm2jU-C1JU?t=118

notice how it is weak enough to bend without melting

now imagine the guy is using the force of a building

How on earth did that fuel spread all across the building then? In reality if what you say is true then a partial collapse is all we should've saw.

there are a lot of flammable things in a bloody office. come on.

[Empire of Narnia]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

You actually believe in that meme?

[Kelinfort]

The asbestos turned into fine grained dust, not the building.

If steel could melt by burning jet fuel then yeah, but that's not the case. The building fell apart not because of the jet fuel but because it was a controlled demolition.

A car can't melt your femur in a crash, but you can't walk. I wonder why.

[Librica]

50 tons of feathers moving at 345 miles per hour is still 50 tons moving at 345 miles per hour. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

The plane did not have much to do with the destruction itself. The building was structured to be designed to resist 30x the weight of aircraft.

Holy shit it's like we know what we're talking about. not.

Maybe the planes were holograms. And there was actually small nukes inside the buildings.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Did you even read a word I fucking said. Or more or less what you said.

No, good.

Steel beams do not have to melt. They can soften by heat and collapse.

God what kind of chemistry class am I teaching. Want me to go over the fucking periodic table and point out steel and show you everything I can?

How on earth did that fuel spread all across the building then? In reality if what you say is true then a partial collapse is all we should've saw.

Every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure . With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

The joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.