Jet fuel burning at 1200 degrees to do thermal expansion has already been debunked. Here is Edna Cintron and three others, standing right there in the hole. Smoke is not even 300 centigrade. NEVERFORGET Cintron and William Rodriguez. Reinvestigate 9/11 ban AIPAC
Posted by SnooOnions3776@reddit | EndlessWar | View on Reddit | 58 comments
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
Steel becomes malleable at 1000°F. Jet fuel Burns at 1500°F.
Do the math.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
You do the math. Other than the floor that was hit with the missile why would the beams of steel melt on other floors?
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
They couldn't carry the weight of the floors above them collapsing on them. Floor beams are not designed to hold loads. From then on it's a cascading failure.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
That is now how things work in the real world. Are you this completely disconnected from mechanics and physics?
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
Floor beams are designed to hold the weight of that floor with a significant margin of error.
They are not designed to carry the weight of 17 floors, which is how many floor were above floor 93.
They are certainly not designed to carry 17 floors, then 18, then 19, then 20, then 21, then 22... The floor plans are definitely not designed to hold the weight of 110 floors.
Do you have any idea how much a 17 story high building weights?
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Lady the building was designed for being hit by an air plane. Also the designs had a safety factor of five to one meaning it was over designed to have five times the minimum required capacity.
The bottom floors were designed to carry the weight of ALL FLOORS ABOVE. They don't just crumple up because some of the floors above ''allegedly'' melted. Makes no difference to the weight capability of the bottom floors below.
Since you are etarded let me explain in a simpler way. Your car is made of thin metal. If something heavy and large falls on your car roof the walls on the sides do not magically explode and become destroyed. In the real world all you are left with is a huge roof dent. Same way when a tree falls on a house the rest of the house walls do not crumple just because the roof has been breached. Even in a house fire walls remain instead of being magically wiped out.
How are you this disconnected from reality?
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
It was absolutely not designed to sustain a fire from 20,000 gallons of jet fuel burning across 6 floors for over an hour. It wasn't built from mithril.
The human body is designed ,as it were, to carry its own weight.
If that is the case, why do you get hurt if you jump from the top of a 17 story tall building?
Bear with me, since I'm apparently etarded as you say.
If you drop 17 cars worth of weight at a speed of 120mph onto your car, that car is absolutely going to be fucking obliterated. And the remains of that car are absolutely going to go all over the place. Not only will the sides of your car blow out, whatever us left is not going to be recognisable as a car.
What if you drop 17 houses onto your house at 120mph?
Alpha1stOne@reddit
How are you this stupid? And ignorant of physics? I am seriously asking because you spew the dumbest shit possible.
Ukronazis hit an apartment building in Russia which did not collapse AFTER an explosive charge hit it.
Also no jet fuel burned because there was no explosion to set it on fire. Fuel does not just catch on fire randomly, it needs an ignition source. What was the ignition source for jet fuel to NOT EXPLODE INTO A FIRE BALL?
Every dumbass shit you spew is counter logic and against physics. How are you this dumb? Seriously the US college system cannot be dumbing down idiots this pathetic who are completely disconnected from reality.
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
I am trying to explain this in a way a toddler would be able to absorb, somehow it's not taking.
Blast damage works completely differently from sustained thermal damage over an hour.
Drive an armored vehicle over an antipersonnel mine and it will be just fine. Put it in a pool of burning jet fuel for an hour, and it's not fine.
Damage to an apartment block is expressed completely differently on a 5 story concrete apartment block and a 110 tall steel structure sustained by a single steel column.
Also, what the fuck are you talking about? Entire cities in Ukraine has been reduced to rubble in Ukraine...
Are you seriously saying you think you can slam an airplane into a skyscraper and there won't be sparks?
airplane fall to the ground in a massive fireball.
Please note that the airplane did not fall on a person who just so happened to have a smoke.
Heck, jet fuel has an autoignition temperature of 410 °F. Just the kinetic energy alone would be more than enough to blow it up.
You are not intelligent enough to have this discussion. I am watching the Dunning–Kruger effect at play.
Also, I had the luxury of schooling in the Norwegian educational system. This isn't even my first language.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Crazy Karen I suggest you read up a little on metallurgy and go to a welding shop. You seem to be completely devoid of any sense of mechanics and physics.
Sky scrapers are not held up by a single column. The building skeleton is many columns and beams reinforcing each other. A failure of several beams or columns does not carry on in an accordion affect. You seem not to understand engineering and structural design.
Heat transfer has to be uniform to collapse a floor on a building EVENLY. Even if somehow magically fuel burned which it didn't, there would be a concentration of the heat in one part of the building and not spread out uniformed.
Since you are this crazy then explain how did 1/8th inch aluminum shell of a hollow vessel slice through multiple 4 inch thick steel columns?
PreparationOk9213@reddit
the jet fuel burned and weakened the beams so they were weakened and could not hold up the floors above, which collapsed and all the floors above the crash site collapsed and the weight of all the floors crashing down brought the floors below down one by one
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
Thanks for taking on this crank.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
No problem. Crazies like that need to be called out for spreading false narratives.
HAHA_goats@reddit
There is plenty left to investigate about the politics surrounding 9/11, but the physics of how the buildings came down is well understood. No bombs were needed to do that.
Conspiracy bullshit like this is part of what gives cover to the actual bad actors and war mongers.
davidmthekidd@reddit
given the damage to the structure, this thing was doomed to collapse, nanotherm wasn't necessary, just heat up all that steel to atleast 500f and there you go.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Steel is literally preheated to 500f just to warm it up to weld. It does not melt at that temperature.
YugoCommie89@reddit
Why would it need to melt in order to collapse a structure?
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Because the other floors had solid steel which did not get even warm and by the laws of physics would not collapse.
YugoCommie89@reddit
So? You have clearly several floors burning as hot as hell. All you need is for the beams to give way, they don't even need to melt and you start getting a cascading effect.
Steel beams at the bottom don't suddenly have structual integrity as a force of several hundreds of thousands of tonnes is now falling in on itself.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
That is not how structures work. The beams at the bottom had held all the weight for decades. They are not going to suddenly implode just because something got hot at the top.
For example ukronazis hit a multi story apartment building with EXPLOSIVE LADEN drone. The explosion took out part of the building and the rest of the building suffered no damage at all. The beams did not suddenly give out on the bottom just because there was immense downward pressure from the explosion.
You struggle with understand physics and mechanics.
If buildings collapsed onto their own weight then controlled demolitions would not need to set charges all the way down to the bottom floors, they would just blow up one of the top floors and then according to you the building would fold onto itself like an accordion. Gee ever wonder why professionals don't apply your delusional theory to their field of work?
YugoCommie89@reddit
First of all you're comparing the World Trade Centre, a building of a 110 floors getting hit with not just a fire, but the force and impact of a 757 and a 767 going at approximately 710 km/per hour, which then do a massive explosion (as they were relatively full of fuel) and burn for several hours, to an apartment building getting struck by a minidrone...
It's just not the same thing buddy.
The beams at the bottom held weight yes, and they held it all the way until the building folded in on itself. But you're forgetting that the force of the building collapsing starts at the floor just below the explosion, not the floors at the bottom. Eventually the bars give in and then the cascading effect starts (from the top, not the bottom like you're claiming).
I don't need to convince you of anything, the physics were there for all to see.
Besides if you want to talk conspiracy, the real question would be how this was allowed to happen, not that it did happen.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Ok how are you this stupid? Steel is used to for structural frames because it does not collapse onto itself like WOOD would. How are you this idiotic seriously?
The building was DESIGNED to withstand an airplane crashing into it and to survive earthquakes.
Explain to the readers idiot how can a hollow vessel with 1/8th inch this aluminum slice through 4 inch thick steel columns in order to get insde the building and why the fuel onboard did not explode and instead magically burned for hours as if it was in a controlled burn? Which one was it? Massive explosion due to being full of fuel or burning for hours as if the fuel did not massively explode?
Dang they used to send semi literally saboteurs to this sub. Now they send out right idiots who have to be at least MBAs based on how stupid the shit you try to spew.
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
*law of physics citation needed
davidmthekidd@reddit
Not necessary to melt, remember, they weighted the same as ten Titanic's stacked on top.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
And you don't understand how structural steel works. It does not crumple in uniform pattern.
davidmthekidd@reddit
500,000 tons.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Nothing to do with crumpling in a uniform pattern.
Dewskyboy@reddit
What about World Trade Center 7? How did that fall down?
HAHA_goats@reddit
Here ya go: https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
Efficient-Fox5793@reddit
Ssshhhh. U can’t mention that building
SmuggestHatKid@reddit
I'm pretty sick and tired of 9/11 conspiracy theories. What good will it do to anyone to "prove" or "spread the truth" about what happened? 9/11 pearl clutching needs to be put to bed and retired.
DayVCrockett@reddit
The point of learning history is to prevent ourselves from repeating it.
SmuggestHatKid@reddit
Get to the point instead of vaguely gesturing at it. What history do you seem to hold so sacred, and what exactly are you doing with said history to influence your actions and policy opinions?
DayVCrockett@reddit
Alright, I’ll unpack that. I recall when I was a teenager and the towers fell. Oh boy was I mad. As a young man, I wanted to see bloody revenge. I cheered as we invaded Iraq. I stood and danced to the “time to bomb saddam” song. These things I never would have done had I realized that it was a false flag. And the story is not new. This happened in Vietnam. Even the Spanish-American war has questionable beginnings.
Now I’ve learned from history. I know what blowback is. I know who instigated the Ukraine war. I instantly was skeptical of the Syria gas attack narrative, which was later proven alto be a lie. I see how the war is “meant to be continuous” and how media works with the government to manufacture consent. For me, this all started by finding out the truth about 9-11.
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
So if it wasn’t a false flag, you would proudly still be in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? 9/11 didn’t justify those wars. Period. End of story.
DayVCrockett@reddit
I was way stupid about politics at that age. So were the adults whose opinions I accepted without critical examination. I had to unlearn a lot before I knew what was really happening in this world.
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
Ok but you’re insinuating that the government creates false flag attacks to lure us into war. I’m actually surprised you didn’t mention Pearl Harbor. But the reality is that the media/government consent machine works at a way deeper level then just trying to trick millions of Americans through a single event like the Gulf of Tonkin. Part of me even thinks that the government intentionally flames conspiracy theories to distract from reality.
Gulf of Tonkin happened in 1964. The US had ALREADY been heavily involved in the war in Vietnam for almost a decade at that point! (Longer if you look back at the First Indochina War). It’s weird we even call it a “false flag” they were landing troops to fight the North Vietnamese!
Events like 9/11 and the Gulf of Tonkin are not singular events designed by the US government to trick silly Americans. They are the culmination of years of aggressive wars and foreign policy that puts American citizens and troops in positions where they are in greater danger then the realize - then uses the eventual attack to justify continuation and expansion of the foreign policy that got us here in the first place.
DayVCrockett@reddit
Yeah, I agree. Especially Vietnam. They didn’t attack at the Gulf of Tonkin, but would have been within their rights if they had. These kind of flagrant violations of the Constitution have been commonplace since Wilson.
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
Most of the country was, with the exception of the far left. The general atmosphere and discourse was pretty much just like today’s is regarding Russia. Exceedingly few Democratic politicians even spoke out against either invasion. A lot of people in both parties are peddling fresh bullshit and rationalizations about it to this day.
And that’s not what they said anyway, your comment is disingenuously reductive. Learning about that prompted them to better examine some of their assumptions and learn more about the realities of our international relations. At least some people are capable of changing their minds and admitting they were wrong.
SmuggestHatKid@reddit
Thank you, that's the other angle that I was having trouble putting into words. Whatever the cause of 9/11, the end results are still a net loss for humanity to this very day.
SmuggestHatKid@reddit
How does focusing on unprovable conspiracy theory from a disaster twenty years ago help us tackle the real and immediate challenges that we're facing today? There's no doubt that our government is deceitful and manipulative.
It just feels like a complete waste of energy to still be harping on about something that could just as easily be ascribed to opportunistic colonialist delight as opposed to intentional malice towards one's own citizenry.
And to do so in such a way as to not actually be proving anything, either; you've called it a false flag, yet you've failed to elaborate why that is the case. You simply declare it so and point to other false flags and incited aggression by the U.S. to prove that it is the case. The logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny in my mind.
DayVCrockett@reddit
You didn’t ask why I thought it was a false flag, you asked why it matters. I assumed by your question you already understood that it was a false flag. If you knew the theories on who did this, then it would be obvious to you why it is relevant. The people who did this never faced consequences. They are still in power and that is absolutely relevant because they are who we must defeat if we are ever to have peace.
I’m not really interested in getting into a discussion about why I believe it was a false flag. If you don’t agree then that’s fine. But if you want to understand then I suggest watching the documentary “9-11 a New Pearl Harbor”.
El3ctricalSquash@reddit
Well considering the number of alarming red flags, it’s the duty of engaged citizens to question the actions of their government. Otherwise politicians and officials can just do whatever they want and the people will continue to matter less and less. The U.S. government is in the midst of a crime spree set off by this event, so it is imperative to study it to understand the nuances of statecraft, clandestine or otherwise.
SmuggestHatKid@reddit
While it is important to question the government's actions, we can all agree that 9/11 conspiracy theories are cream of the crop in endlessly pondering the what ifs, coincidences, and pseudoscientific rigors involved in such an action. But the world needs to grow the fuck up and move the fuck on. There are countless other ways to fight against U.S. imperialism and overreach in global politics, and kicking a dead horse is only going to get more spastic twitches out of the liberals who use it like a holy cross to defend the neo-Crusades we're waging. What about focusing on the actual policies and abuses happening now, rather than events that have been investigated extensively already?
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
“9/11 was an inside job” is a poor avenue to go down for those truly opposed to war. First, it gives implicit justification that if 9/11 “wasn’t” an inside job, than the war in Afghanistan and the thousands (millions if we extend to Iraq and beyond) dead were justified. Second, it ignores everything leading up to 9/11. I can’t go into every single thing that happened but US foreign policy was just as terrible before. Read Bin Ladin’s letter. Read about the USS Cole and the war in Lebanon. This was a long time coming.
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
“First, it gives implicit justification that if 9/11 “wasn’t” an inside job, than the war in Afghanistan and the thousands (millions if we extend to Iraq and beyond) dead were justified.”
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
More importantly, how do you not realize that by making this argument while insisting that it was NOT a false flag it is actually only you, yourself, who is saying that the invasions were justified?
“Second, it ignores everything leading up to 9/11. I can’t go into every single thing that happened but US foreign policy was just as terrible before. Read Bin Ladin’s letter.”
LMFAO but let me guess, you think that people who say “read the Unibomber Manifesto” are dangerous whackos, right?
The fact that you choose the sophomoric rant of the sheltered, religious-zealot son of a wealthy and influential Saudi developer as your touchstone for illustrating the depths of damage done by US interventions in that region is telling. You need to go back quite a bit further.
Biffsbuttcheeks@reddit
You either have reading comprehension issues or are looking for a fight but I’m definitely not saying the invasions were justified or even implying it. Even in this sub others in this thread imply that if it wasn’t a false flag, then the wars were justified. I talk to plenty of right wingers opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan now - their primary reason is “false flag” 9/11. These aren’t anti war guys, they would gladly continue wars against “the real bad guys.” So no, I didn’t pull this out of my ass.
I don’t know why we’re pulling the Unibomber into this, but that’s simply a bizarre ad-hominem.
I chose Bin Ladin’s letter to mention first for two reasons. First, it was released very close to 9/11, so chronologically it’s a good place to start. Second, it’s very accessible and a good starting point for someone unfamiliar with US foreign policy because it mentions a number of events worth going down the rabbit hole on.
Again, I think you have reading issues, I clearly state that US foreign policy leading up to 9/11 was horrible and that there’s too much to go into, so I started with some events closer to 9/11 on the Chronological side of things to help the interested person get the ball rolling. It wasn’t meant to be a end all list (as I clearly say). Less YouTube conspiracy vids, more theory comrade!
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
Read YOUR OWN WORDS. Here they are again (grammatical errors and all):
“First, it gives implicit justification that if 9/11 “wasn’t” an inside job, than the war in Afghanistan and the thousands (millions if we extend to Iraq and beyond) dead were justified.”
That right there is YOU saying it. That’s your own statement, not you quoting your right wing friends.
Link ONE other comment in this thread that “implies” that if it was NOT a false flag then the invasions WERE justified. There are none, aside from the other doofus who thought you made a gotcha.
You sound like a historically illiterate and generally clueless thirteen year old using ChatGPT.
astraightcircle@reddit
I don't think we need 9/11 to argue why banning AIPAC is necessary. The genocide defended by them shoukd be enough.
Also I don't really understand all this fuss about metling steel? Skyscraper gets hit by big flying thing. Skyscraper crumbles. Mass death and a huge tragedy follows.
Even if you look for crimes Israel comitted against the USA, you have far worse, such as the killing of several US citizens protesting against the genocide, the attack on known US navy ships as well as the theft of weapons grade Uranium from US soil to build the bomb.
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
I’ve sometimes wondered why no one talks about what would have happened if the twin towers fell, even just partially, but not so cleanly into their own footprints. Seems to me that if there is any potential risk of such a building being structurally compromised in such a way that it could topple in a haphazard manner and take out other random property structures, perhaps even causing some degree of domino effect, then it would be a reasonable security measure to have in place a failsafe mechanism for bringing it down in a more controlled manner. I’d also fully expect that to be kept highly, strictly confidential, for obvious reasons.
I mean, I know there’s the shady shit with Bush connections to some contractor that had full and exclusive access to the buildings for maintenance or renovations or whatever prior to (I don’t clearly recall the details). But it just seems to me that, given all the potential risks involved, the liability complications, etc. why wouldn’t you have a building like that preemptively rigged to pull if necessary?
Alpha1stOne@reddit
The owner of the buildings upgraded his insurance policy right before and chose that day not to come in to office along with his family members.
Buildings don't self destruct when damaged to one side. It was a controlled demolition not a building toppling over.
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
Ok, I did forget about the insurance policy upgrade but I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m actually saying.
Yes, obviously it was a controlled demolition.
A point of contention has always been, “well then when, how and by whom were the explosives so expertly placed prior to the plane collision?”
I’m saying, a simple explanation would be that they were there for a long time, as a fail-safe measure in the event of something like this happening. Because it would be stupid not to.
It wasn’t the first time a plane hit a skyscraper, everyone knew planes were getting bigger and flights more frequent. If a skyscraper sustained enough damage for even a partial collapse, and was NOT rigged to be pulled, then there’s no way of even predicting where it’s going to fall and what sort of additional explosions, fires, damage and deaths it could cause.
Alpha1stOne@reddit
A subsidiary of Haliburton actually did ''maintainance'' work a month prior.
Boeing planes are made from very thin aluminum. The amount of velocity needed for 1/8th inch thick aluminum to slice through 4 inch thick steel would have to be a hundred time faster than max speed possible by an air plane.
What it looks like when a Boeing hits a bird
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
I really do not want to see what that looks like but please clarify, do you mean that you don’t believe planes actually struck the buildings? Or that you don’t believe that they could have done enough damage to cause any type of collapse (even of the upper portions)?
Alpha1stOne@reddit
The buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them. It was part of the engineering parameters.
Take an empty or even a full aluminum can and launch it at high velocity at even wood much less a thin piece of steel.
Think about it for a second. Hollow vessel 1/8th inch aluminum supposedly sliced through 4 inch steel frame taking out multiple columns before the alleged fuel began to burn among them?
The velocity required for aluminum to shear multiple columns of 4 inch steel would be impossible because at such needed velocity the aluminum would have burned up en route.
Here is an analogy. They don't make space shuttles out of aluminum shell because at re-entry the velocity is so high that it would burn up the aluminum and steel.
Ukronazis hit a civilian apartment building in Russia LOADED with explosives and the building did not collapse. The boeing was not loaded with explosives.
Drone with massive explosives did not collapse a much smaller building
Even as part of the building is destroyed the rest stays intact. It is engineered that way.
darkpsychicenergy@reddit
Hmmm
Alpha1stOne@reddit
Tanks have lets say four inches of armor. It takes a high explosive penetrating round to get through one plate of that. How did an air plane made of 1/8th inch aluminum SLICE through multiple columns of 4 inch steel like butter?
Ok-West-7125@reddit
Need to rename this sub "conspiracy nuts"