Jet fuel literally CANNOT melt steel beams. Call it a meme. Call it a conspiracy theory. It's the truth. Please, insult my intelligence with an ad hominem or smug anime girl.
This is and always has been the smoking gun of 9/11. Get fucked shills.
>steel holds all of its strength when heated up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
>>68210936
>nips hold all of their lifeforce when nuked
>I don't know how heat or simple physics works the post
>>68210960
seen it. he doesn't provide any proof of the temperatures he's working with. sorry. not gonna bite on that ancient bait.
it wasn't the jet fuel, it was the thousands and thousands of pounds of paper.
>daily reminder if you believe the jet fuel argument you are a bona fide retard
Jet fuel weakens steel beams and the flowing metal-like substance is almost certainly aluminum from the fuselage of the plane, combined with whatever was in the building.
Did anyone else read it as "Jew Fuel?"
>>68211138
Nope, it was only you
>>68210936
Yes. Jet fuel can drasticly weaken steel beams
But it can't fuse them together or melt them into blobs of molten metal, like the ones found at ground zero
If I see that jew fuel one more time
>>68211234
>But it can't fuse them together or melt them into blobs of molten metal, like the ones found at ground zero
Can the friction of a 100+ story skyscraper falling to the ground do that though?
>>68211359
Considering you can weld metal together by hammering it, I'd expect hundreds of tons of building falling on top of it could do the same.
>Steel which is supporting thousands of tons of concrete must be fully liquefied before it will buckle
Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams; it just needs to make it a bit soft.
>>68211359
No, friction and compression don't cause any head at all.
>>68211359
Nope. But those blobs of metal could have been aluminium from planes. Also at 1500C* you will easily be able to fuse steal.
>>68210891
classic jew slide thread. sage it.
>>68211514
>Friction is energy
>Friction cannot generate heat
>Australia
>>68211234
If you have ever played with white hot steel you wouldn't be so quick to say so. A massive piece of white hot steal hitting the ground in the white way could compress like silly putty. When I used to hang around forges you I occasionally dropped white hot steal, and it pancaked.
>>68211565
>Taking the bait this easily
>>68211575
Ignore m spelling mistakes please, please for the love of God don't hurt me.
>steel beams must become liquid to lose strength
Conspiracy memers, lady and gentlemen.
>>68210891
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)
/thread
>>68211659
tough luck pal
>>68211565
>I'm a Canadian Intellectual
>Canadian Intellectual
>>68211575
Jet fuel
White hot steel
Pick one
>>68210987
Gr8 1
>>68210936
>the jet fuel compromises the beam at the 99th floor
>the tower free falls
>>68211785
Yeah, most steels would be around about white hot at that temperature. Even bright orange will give you the same effects. You can easily fuse bright orange hot steel.
Get educated.
>>68211759
Fuck, I got mem'd
>>68211752
Also specifically:
>the effects of creep deformation generally become noticeable at approximately 30% of the melting point (as measured on a thermodynamic temperature scale such as Kelvin or Rankine) for metals
for those too lazy to read
>>68211820
>the other 98 floors were designed to hold the weight of the 99th floor crashing down on them and building momentum
>>68210891
Mate, mate...
Do you know what happens to train tracks with just a little sunshine? They expand and buckle if there are no gaps. How much do you think the beans will expand with fucking burning jet fuel on them? It doesn't need to melt. Add to that the impact of a fucking commercial plane and all the other shit people have listen here... Come on.
I know this is a low quality bait thread... but why is it never brought up that the aluminum in the plane would start burning? Aluminum burns - it burns spectacularly hot and energetically (It's the fuel of basically all solid rockets in powder form for example) which is why large plane fires that go unextinguished leave so little of the plane behind.
Jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel, but Aluminum certainly does.
>>68210891
Dude... Ive heard this a thousand times.. How about... Instead of having a perpetual dickswinging contest about what the fuck happened... We address the real issue which is the stagnation of our current government?
Ten year old dead horse. But keep kicking it. Why dont we just knock on the doors that we pay for? Our apathy will be our demise.
>This is and always has been the smoking gun of 9/11
It isn't. Some key smoking guns are:
>wtc1/2: Pancake theory not viable
>wtc1/2: Any 'melting' from jet fuel would only have been local anyway
>wtc1/2/7: these buildings are specifically designed redistribute load even under severe compromise
>wtc1/2/7: near freefall speed impossible unless core strength completely removed throughout entire height of building
>wtc1/2/7: mass of fine particles evidence of explosives. (note: explosives take time to plant and sequence)
>wtc1/2: ejected material lateral motion and velocity only possible with explosives
>wtc 7: Fire. Just fire? Please..
>wtc1/2/7: 1,500 reputable architects and engineers say the official explanation is impossible.
...and on it goes.
>>68210891
WTC WASN'T EVEN REAL
THE TOWERS WERE IMAGES PROJECTED ONTO BALLOONS
DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES
>>68211927
I may not know that but even with limited experience with metals this becomes more obvious than it otherwise would have been, which isn't to say it shouldn't be intuitive to everyone.
>>68212059
15 years dead now
>>68211981
On solid sheets of metal the oxidized layer acts as flame retardant.
Some civil engineers actually rely pretty heavily on rust protecting their shit to save money. Eventually it always fails but oxidization does protect the structural integrity of metals quite a bit.
A tower my company did a while ago relied on rust to secure the balconies, not even kidding lol
Those balconies will probably collapse and kill some people 20-30 years down the line but whatever, it's what they paid for.
>>68211565
>>68211095
>>68211109
>>68211359
Alright ameriburger retards and various other retards.
Steel beam has a certain specific heat for the steel beam's molecules themselves to have a temperature increase. The state of matter of steel beams going from solid to liquid is definitely requires more energy than jet fuel, but as many smartburgers have stated, the state of matter doesn't have to change for the structural integrity of the building to be compromised.
Also. Nigger do you know what fusion means chemically/thermodynamically? Becayse its wasnt fused metal, it was warped metal which were semi liquidated then quickly cooled as it fell.
Also assuming a fall from a 100 story building gave it enough energy to fucking burn and change states of matter is equally retarded. Finally. The atmospheric pressure up at the 99th floor is considerably lower than at the ground, so it might be actually possible that the steel beams went almost near the point of changing state from solid to liquid.
>>68212120
The towers had weight distributed across the whole floors, no question. HOWEVER if the central support fails that's GG, and failure can occur all along a STEEL MEME due to failure in a small part of the MEME, depending on the steel. Construction steel to my knowledge isn't one of those steals, so it does make me wonder...
debunking911.com
stop posting
>>68210891
C4 helps as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-CPijjFWhw
>>68212059
this is the defining moment of the 21st century.
it has led to the state of the world today.
regimes overthrown. death. destruction. trillions of dollars wasted. millions of refugees.
orchestrated by israel (see ACB) and jewish-american war hawks (PNAC).
it makes me want to puke when people dismiss it as mere history.
Doesn't need to melt it. Just soften it enough to make it bend. Then gravity will do the rest.
>>68211480
>Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams; it just needs to make it a bit soft.
Fat girls are my jet fuel then.
>>68212120
Jet fuel is volatile and can explode given in comes into an environment where there is fuel (paper in the buildings) or increase in temperature and increase in pressure. The moment of impact would have caused explosion.
Im not saying that the jews didnt do this, but to claim there were explosives in the building is retarded.
>>68212454
/thread
everyone can fuck off now
>>68212270
Your mostly right on that second paragraph, however this whole semi liquid thing doesn't follow. They were solid, an likely pancaked upon hitting the ground. The fusion could have occurred during any among of physical force between the two metal bodies.
>>68212406
well shit.
>George Bush confirms 911 was inside job.
Bush was a patsy.
>>68212447
And it's the reason why Trump is needed as president now more than ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqA2Hs5dTFM
>>68212454
Not even bend lol. It can fuck up in so many ways. The expansion can break the bolts, the beams can snap, cracks in the material could be exposed, there are so many ways, man intuitive, that these people ignore.
>>68212447
>>68212454
>>68212475
>>68212496
>>68212514
>>68212523
You guys are saying the president is lying about explosives and agents..
see>>68212406
>>68210891
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel beams.
BUT CHEMTRAIL LIQUID DOES
>>68212601
The bolts don't really hold any structural integrity.
Ironworkers weld structural joints, bolts are simply convenient to hold things together, they really cannot withstand a lot of force.
The welds are only designed to withstand like 20-30 minutes of direct heat then they pop, then the bolts pop, then the building collapses. This is pretty well known stuff within engineering.
Some engineers opt to coat all the steel in epoxy for extra strength, usually it's only done on bridges though unless you've got one hell of a skycraper going up haha
>>68212630
>george w bush is a retard puppet that notoriously misspoke throughout his entire administration
>but not this time
>>68212630
"During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows."
That video is heavily taken out of context, this is what was actually said.
> office fires melting/"softening" steal beams
Doesn't happen, turbovirgins.
>implying jet fuel is the smoking gun LOL
BRO WT7 IS THE SMOKING GUN
>>68212788
There is jet fuel, you stupid nigger.
And any amount of heat, anything even 30% of the melting point of steel is guaranteed to cause large weaning of the steal.
>>68212776
Of course he's not referring to 9/11 put KSMs tactics match 9/11 and that uniform collapse of the towers. It looked like detonations to me on TV. Who know when and how long those bombs had been put there.
>>68210936
explain building 7 then
>>68212334
you're talking about a sequential model that the designers precluded.
the weight of the floors is transferred to the external interlocking supports but mostly to the core vertical beams.
after impact the load redistributes and you reach equilibrium. even if the top part collapsed it wouldn't affect more than the top 30 floors and likely very little damage to the core.
oh, and go meme yourself. ;^)
http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
>>68212920
We don't even know it was bombs. As far as I am concerned if there is a subvert plot here, it was the perfect crime. There isn't enough evidence.
>>68212911
Post vids of buildings freefall-collapsing because of office fires.
Glad to see everyone else has their PhD's in structural engineering, physics and metallurgy.
>>68212934
A great deal of the Trade Towers fell into it and sheared away part of the building.
>muh building 7
whats so hard for troofers to understand?
>>68213029
you are fucking autistic
>>68213029
> a great deal
You know what buildings actually got a great deal of debris on them? The ones RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers and miraculously the ones whose structure remained more or less intact.
>>68213066
>Heat
>Moves
>Downwards.
Literally 1984 tier of government indoctrination.
>>68213066
>heat travels downward and intensifies
oh god, I hope you are just trolling.
>>68213066
How your pic explains why wtc7 fell
>>68210891
It can't. But couple that with tons of red hot metal on top of said steel beams can and will weaken them.
>>68212995
No such thing as a perfect crime. Perfect coverups, maybe.
>>68213029
Nah, even my Dad called bullshit on that building collapsing when in video it appears as nothing hits it but small amounts of debris.
The aircraft caught fire and the chemtrail liquid in the wing tanks they spray to help with mind control burnt - and it burns much hotter than jet fuel and melted the beams.
>>68213240
Alex Jones, go to bed.
>>68213088
Seriously, I've been to ground zero and WTC7 is a fair distance away, with buildings in between it and where the towers stood
>>68213087
>>68213088
Stop posting, /x/ shitters.
Keep in mind other buildings hit by debris weren't as tall so supported less, did not catch fire, and/or were constructed in different ways than WTC7.
Do the armchair structural engineers really think they are better educated than the thousands of actual experts that have studied 9/11 for more than a decade?
>>68210891
WTC7
Pentagon (no plane)
/thread
>>68213277
Anyone know what went on in that building?
>>68213008
Good point, friend.
I'm banging my head against a brick wall here.
If you don't believe me, try these guys to start with: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
www ae911truth org
I'm done...
>>68210891
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
>>68210891
>2016
>still believing airliners hit the WTC
>>68212268
I'm well aware of that - but you should be equally aware that layer falls off when aluminum gets hot enough.
Also, a great deal of the plane was pulverized.
There would be plenty of burning Aluminum.
>>68213004
There is jetfuel involved you stupid fucking cunt! Find me a video in which another massive fucking building has been hit by a plane full of fuel and survived!
>>68210891
Yup, it can't and no one has ever claimed that it did.
The temperature it burns at is enough to weaken steel by 50% though.
>conspiracyfag BTFO
>>68213149
It's called gravity
>>68213228
>No such thing as a perfect crime. Perfect coverups, maybe.
Yeah, agreed, the coverups may well have made the crime workable.
>>68213328
Yes, of course they do.
>>68213557
It wasn't just the plane, but the cheap way the insulation was sprayed onto the metal and the way the towers were constructed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash
>>68213450
>pulverised
Yes, so much so that it wouldn't have made it inside the building
>soft aluminium aircraft flying at 100mph Vs. Reinforced concrete skyscraper.
Even if the aircraft did hit the towers, they wouldn't have had enough mass or velocity to break through the concrete and steel frame to even get anywhere near the centre in order to "melt" the steel core.
Anyway it's quite clear that no aircraft hit the 2 towers, just like an aircraft didn't strike the Pentagon, and how an aircraft didn't crash in a hole in a field in Pennsylvania that looked like it was dug out by a 3 yr old and a beach spade.
Its pretty clear after all this time that 911 was a big false shitstorm executed by the USA themselves to fool their people and the world that Muslims did it.
>a bunch of Muslims hijacked airliners and precisely flew them into buildings at low speed and low altitude.
Lel.
>>68213907
Please kill yourself...
>>68213756
B-25 bomber: Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
767-200ER: Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of up to 395,000 lb (179,000 kg)
Yep, sure is comparable.
>>68214048
The Empire State building would most likely not have collapsed even if a 767 flew into it. It was sensibly constructed with the entire integrity of the building lying on a few interior columns that would fail, were the exterior supports blown away.
>>68213756
Aluminium can be melted at those temperatures. Flame retardation will not protect you from basic thermodynamics.
>>68210960
he is using a iron rod because his alien.
>>68214137
Every skyscraper is designed that way usually.
You always weld the internal load-bearing beams, bolt the outer structural beams which technically don't hold any weight at all, then often you use angled beams to direct load from the outer structure onto the center. That's why systems like Hambro composite steel can get away with using really cheap shit that is barely even legal yet you can build an entire skyscraper with it.
I think people put way way too much merit in what engineers do. In the end when bids come in, the cheapest wins and speed form systems like Hambro always win, and they're certainly not structurally secure.
>>68210891
Were did this notion that jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel come from?
The buring temperature of Jet A1 is between 1030 and 2230°C depending on oxygen ratio. Structural steal melts at between 724 and 1492°C depending on the amount of carbon in it.
>>68210891
>>68210992
>>68210936
>>68211109
>>68212270
>>68215554
>32 floors vs 110
>didn't get hit by a 767
>completely different design
>building partially collapsed anyway
>had to be demolished after the fire due to extensive damage.
Try harder m8
>>68212447
I dont mean that it is old news. I mean i think the anger is misplaced and could be better appropriated.
>>68210891
indeed, it can't. the wtc buildings went down from controlled micro nuclear detonations in their basement.
that's why people suffered puzzling burns, and the place was quarantined for several days until the radiation dissipated.
>>68210936
>normal office fires can easily reach the same temperature of burning jet fuel
>the world trade centre would have fallen down if it caught fire and the sprinkler system failed
>>68212120
>wtc1/2/7: 1,500 reputable architects and engineers say the official explanation is impossible.
if you can provide source on this i'll believe you. 1,500 reputable architects and engineers ought to know their shit better than any canadian intellectual or other subhuman scum.
>>68210936
Also
>steel is impervious to all damage except heat
>>68216958
It doesn't matter one bit if they're reputable architects or engineers. What matters is whether they can prove it. Having an education doesn't turn you into some absolute authority on everything in your field.
>>68216625
>radiation dissipated
it was thermite not nukes dont over complicate it
>>68210992
this post is invisible to OP, but thanks for posting it.
>>68217123
No, but I'd rather be inclined to trust someone with an education and actual knowledge of the field than any one else really.
If 1,500 people with education and knowledge on the topic say that the story we're being told doesn't hold up then we ought to look into why that is the case. Don't you agree?
Or maybe you'd rather put your trust in some random anon on the interbutts?
>>68214003
>Sweden
I think the whole system collapsed because of the buckling phenomenon. Basically, the steel beams did not melt under the blaze of the fire, but they definitely heated up.
Most materials are subject to thermal expansion, in which they're length is increased due to a variation of temperature. It can be modeled by a simple equation like ΔL=αΔT where ΔL and ΔT are respectively the variation of length and temperature.
Now, assuming the beam is locked by the ceiling, it can't expand and will thus be submitted to a force or stress exercised by the ceiling.
For a certain value of the stress, which I remind you is directly related to the variation of temperature ΔT, the beam will become unstable and may collapse. To understand this more in depth, just read this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling
>>68210891
water cant cut through steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hAM68K9OU
>>68210891
yeah and the crash of a 90 tons airplane with 30 tons exploding fuel has absolutely no impact. everything was fine afterwards.
>>68210891
We need to dispel the notion that jet fuel can melt steel beams it simply isn't true
>>68210891
Well bot to disagree with you here hut toi are a faggot. Sure, jet fuel can't melt steel beams directly. You are right. However, you apparently forgot typical campfire physics. Those were offices they planes crashed into. All that stuff caught on fire.
Now for Campfire Physics. You have a normal fire going and you throw a log on the fire. That log increases the heat of the fire, allowing it to burn hotter. Catch my drift?
So, with the heat of the jet fuel causing the furnature, walls and flooring to catch on fire, the tempature rose beyond what jetfuel is capable of, into something completely different, not to mention the planes hitting the buildings could of done structural damage too. We don't know as the buildings don't stand today.
Not picking a side in the dabate to if it was government or pissed off kebabs who did it, just opening minds for people to think.
![article-2035419-0049E46600000258-317_306x423[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HII2F69.jpg "article-2035419-0049E46600000258-317_306x423[1].jpg")
>>68220277
look at this picture, the size of the towers, and where the plane hit on the first tower. The idea that the impact of the plane would make the building crumble perfectly over it's base and that the fuel hitting the top of the tower would be able to debilitate the building foundation and, again, make it crumble perfectly over it's base is ridiculous.
>>68210891
>that fucking vat
>>68210891
Chemtrail fluids can melt steel beams though and god knows how much of that toxic shit was in those planes.
>>68210992
Why didn't the beam disintegrate like the ones that simply disappeared at the WTC so it could fall, unhindered, at free fall speed perfectly into its own footprint rather than toppling?
>>68211480
If that were the case, the top of the tower would have fallen off to the side rather than the entire building falling straight down at free fall speed.
Aluminium wings can't shred through steel beams like if it was going through heated butter
>>68210891
"Pillars of strength
The wreckage was greater than anyone could have imagined, Maikish recalls. But the World Trade Center was in no danger of collapsing. "No other structure, no complex would have withstood that kind of blast" claims Maikish. After all, the giant buildings are designed to resist a once in a century wind blast of 150mph. Each tower can sway up to 3ft in heavy winds. The instruments that record this swaying registered nothing from the explosion. The structures were also engineered to soak up the impact of a Boeing 707, the biggest plane in the skies when the towers went up in the later 1960s"
Page 42 - http://books.google.com/books?id=pOMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=popular+mechanics+1993+world+trade&source=bl&ots=rJppu41dKz&sig=FnQHJDSqsocMl8Pnf536cBiu21g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zPseVLOnD9e1yASP8oLAAg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%201993%20world%20trade&f=false
>>68210936
Black helicopters!!!
>>68221001
>That log increases the heat of the fire, allowing it to burn hotter.
Yes, just by like mixing two cups of water heated to 50°C is going to produce water with temperature over 50°C. Add more and more of 50°C water and the water starts boil, at certain point the water will be so hot it will melt steel beams.
>>68210891
well thats not the full truth...
jetfuel could melt steelbeams but only in a controlled environment with the addition of EXTRA OXIGEN.
with air™ as only oxigen supplier it can never get hot enough because of lack of oxigen.
>>68223931
kek
>>68213907
Please kill yourself...
>>68223588
They can at 450mph.
>>68223982
btw.... just think about what jetengines are made of...
diamonds?
not mentioning that in a jetengine you have a controlled combustion where air gets compressed to get more oxigen....
