I don't know if this was memed into oblivion because it was true or false

I don't know if this was memed into oblivion because it was true or false

Can jet fuel (+ impact of plane) actually melt steel beams?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes it can.

Can't melt stale memes though

No, but high temperatures weaken the strength of steel. In the case of the WTC, the temperatures produced by burning jet fuel (as well as flammable furnishings within the buildings and airplanes) weakened the steel structure below the required dead load.

Jet fuel can certainly weaken steel beams, but 9/11 has some very fishy details

>mfw life got better for me after 9/11

The 90's were shit in the UK if you lived outside of South East England. My neighbourhood was a fucking slum back then, urgh.

Yes, but it's not just jet fuel melting something that caused the collapse of the towers anyway. So the entire notion is retarded.

it doesn't have to turn to liquid to fall

Yes, jet fuel can in fact weaken steel beams to the point of losing it's structural integrity. Structural integrity are the key words. The beams don't have to melt into a liquid, it just has to be weakened to the point where it can no longer hold the weight that is pushing down on it.

these, op.

How did WTC7 fall then?

I wipe boogers on my benis

It had a big portion of its tower-facing side sheared off by the towers' collapse, which was further weakened by fires.

No but placed thermite charges can.

Bullshit, leaf. A piece of tower broke some windows of WTC7. A regular fire (no jet fuel to meme) would not take down a building built like WTC7. There's been examples of other even higher steel skyscrapers that caught fire and didn't just collapse.

>there are people who unironically believe this

Plus with that much fire, in that tight a space, with that high altitude (and the accompanying wind speeds), it basically acted like a giant furnace.

Could it take a tower down?
Sure I will give that one
Will it make molten steel like found at ground zero
Hell no
Will it take down a building that wasn't even hit by a plane (building 7)
Hell no

People keep forgetting about building 7. That's the smoking gun.

wait what's building 7?

>broke some windows
>hur dur the one building looks small by comparison, and the debris looks small because perspective
>hur dur the debris must have been tiny and insignificant then

It's probably true that for building to crumble you don't have to melt steel beams supporting it. The problem with this response is that there was actual molten steel on the site, so it doesn't address the issue and thus is a strawman.

You have to remember your talking about massive pieces of debris falling hundreds of feet.
What do you think would happen to your house if you dropped a car from just 20 feet above it?
Now what do you think would happen to a larger building if you dropped massive debris from hundreds of feet above?

>hur dur every building is meant to withstand nuclear attacks, nothing could have brought WTC7 down

Cold fusion directed energy

The molten steel was from the bottom.
Conservation of energy.
Where did all that energy go from the collapse?
The bottom of the building would get a disproportionate amount of that energy. Far more than enough to melt some steel.

WTC7 was a big building itself dumbass.

The steel melted from the kinetic energy of a thousand tons of falling building.

Think of it this way - if you rub two sticks together you can make a spark and start a fire, the molten steel is just this principle magnified one million times + some part of the construction was pretty fucking hot before the collapse due to the raging fire

I don't want to get dragged into this shot again. Its been 15 years already but...no. The steel beams don't melt. They soften. Become maliable.

Softened beams + tons of weight + large swaths of impact damage = no more towers.

Was it Jews? What about wtc7?

These questions, to me, need answered.

So what type of energy do you think a piece of debris weighing 100 pounds falling from 800 feet has? Like it's going to bounce of WTC7 or something? No it's going to crash through it like a meteor.
All of the falling pieces damaged it severely.

Who cares. Jews did this. End.

WTC Building 7 fell at freefall speed which is only possible via controlled demolition. = preplanted charges = there's more to it than the planes

Think of the steel like plastic. You don't necessarily have to melt plastic, you can say raise the temperature a bit and it gets very soft and looses structural integrity.

You could make the same claim with the Twin towers in the way they fell straight down into their foundations. I don't believe in the controlled demolition theory and instead just think the structural damage and weight of the buildings caused enough instability that weight built up and collapsed

Go grab a spoon and start bending it. You'll notice it'll heat up.

>can confirm. Planted charges not possible
>worked with explosives before
>could not have been done without thousands of workers
>in an occupied building would take months of work to avoid obvious detection

My house is not a skyscraper designed to withstand these kinds of things so your argument is invalid, friend.

Also I would like to see how your mind rationalizes the fact that it fell in the fashion of a controlled demolition.

You're the one who is ignorant about this topic.
>hurr durr

I fully agree with you guys. In my opinion, the physics involved in the attack and following collapse are far more than most people will try to understand. It's easier to go "huurr duuurr controlled demo".

The REAL conspiracy is how cozy the Bush administration was with the Saudi's, who evidence points to funding this attack.

>in an occupied building would take months of work to avoid obvious detection
That's not an issue.
They had many many years to set this shit up.

Even if what you are saying is true, which it's not, how does debris falling on top of a building make it collapse from the ground floor?

You ACTUALLY believe that? You're on pol, we call ourselves rational and logical. You really think that could have been happening for YEARS and either no one finds out/leaks the info, or an accident happens and spills it?
You're smarter than this, user. It was the Saudi's, blame the muzzies, not the gubmint.

pure coincidence

Hot enough to bend but would have caused the towers to fall at an angle, like a Jenga tower. Both falling straight down plus thermite found in chemical analysis are red flags to the jet-only narrative.

Even if the whole 911 attacks were an inside job what happened is how they fell the impact alone compromised the structural integrity of the tower plus all the jet fuel burning all the flammable material inside added from the draft is what brought the tower down
If I am able to get white hot with my charcoal forge with a pos walmart fan I the draft coming up and into that building is enough to weaken the structure to bring it down
If I remember correctly all you need to do is get the steel to 600 degrees F to weaken the steel

They could have done that afterwards, during the cleanup.
Anyways, one of the Mossad agents that was arrested on 9/11 had a service entrance pass to the building on him at the time he was arrested. Who's to say what they could have been working on, and how much time they had to prepare.

Anyone else think 9/11 sent us to a universe where Donald Trump becomes President?

that exactly why they chose the muh melted beams as a cover, because it's plausible,

And the beams melting did cause the towers to fall, but not the beams at the top of the building, the ones melted by thermite at the bottom. If the beams at the top of the tower melted then how did the entire skyscraper fall in freefall? How the hell did WTC 7 fall?

>worked for engineering firm
>worked on demo projects

>not really close to controlled demolition

>skyscrapers are designed to withstand these kinds of things
LOL

The cost and lost floor space would be insane if that were true. You'd basically have massive steel concrete tubes with only a few offices in the center if that were true.
You can design a building to hold up better, but not immune to those things.

It wasn't like one single piece of debris did it. You have a complex structural situation taking place. A fire raging for hours weakening integrity with no suppression. Several points of severe damage from falling debris.

Lol, controlled demolition, largest in history, covertly, secretly, requiring billions of dollars, secrecy of thousands of people.
vs.
Muslims

Yeah, I'm sure it was the expensive, hard to execute conspiracy theory that's basically impossible.

youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

You underestimate the jews, and neglect the billions in gold that went missing from underneath the WTC

Keep taking the simple cop-out answer burger

Doesn't need to melt to become weak enough to collapse.
But the way the building fell just don't make sense

People like to believe extravagant theories, make their lifes interesting.

>thermite found in chemical analysis
I'm not deffending official version, but come on. Thermite isn't some kind of rare earth element, it's just fucking aluminium and iron with oxigen bound to it. Plenty of this stuff in planes and skyscrapers.

But it wouldn't collapse at free fall speed like a controlled demo

>it's a Sup Forums WTC thread, literally talking about jet fuel and steel beams

Hot diggity I have missed these. Before I got redpilled and browsed Sup Forums ironically I used to love these threads

Isnt it strange how lucky larrys family and friends were all sick that day or simply couldnt make it to work? or how somebody played the market as if they knew what was going to happen? or how about the fact that the WTC had dogs that could detect explosives on watch up until just before it happened? Lots of shit doesnt add up and it may just be coincidental but for 100% sure they arent telling us everything

>I don't believe they were demolished
>Just that all 3 buildings literally fell straight down in the same pattern of a controlled demolition
>Only time in history that 3 buildings came down this way

Yep seems legit

It's more like poking a hole in mosquito netting with an axe.

I'd be nice if someone could explain exactly HOW this was designed to withstand a jetliner impact. Like, were they expecting a 707 at top speed? Did they think the average building might keel over sideways and design it to not sway from the impact? Did they think about a higher section falling on to the lower section at all?

Thermite is basically a fucking sparkler.

Anyone who believes this shit has brain damaged.

Odd that no demolition teams are using this technique.

Why bother to carefully place explosives in a precise symmetrical pattern when all you have to do is make a bonfire on a random floor near the roof?

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, no. Even if it could then that doesn't explain how the towers fell at free fall speed through the path of maximum resistance.

...

i bet its called gravity.....when that much weigh can free fall even 1meter it will not stop easily...only guess

what does cia say?

>.when that much weigh can free fall even 1meter

That's exactly the idea behind a controlled demolition, but that requires the fall to 'begin' at the base of the building, not the top. How would the bottom of the building lose ground if a plane hits the top?

Is everyone here CIA?

i can buy the vertical fall once it got momentum, but it got it, at the perfect angle, none of them toppled to any side, thats the problem to me

2 planes, 3 towers fell, all vertical falls

Good goy

Oh look at that, another 9/11 thread

...

pic is old, recent fire in dubai should be included

...

>whole office building filled with flammable materials
>jet hits at high velocity
>explodes, jet fuel ignites office building filled with flammable materials
>????
>MUH THERMITE

Why can't the conspiracy theory just be that Bush allowed the attack to happen? Fuck.

9/11 was obviously a false-flag psy-op. Anyone still on board with the official story is retarded or a disinformation agent... or both.

...

flammable materials? nothing more flammable than the jet fuel retard, and even the jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. adding material to a fire doesn't make it hotter.

Do you also believe a plane hit the Pentagon?

It's irrelevant whether it can or not. The Twin Towers were made from an aluminum-stell alloy, which CAN melt from the heat emanating from burning jet fuel.

Also, the kikes used materials they shouldn't have in the construction that made it hotter than it should have been. It might have still fallen even if they hadn't, but it probably would have taken longer.

This.

Because steel buildings down fall at freefall speeds into their own footprints unless support columns are demolished.

Twin towers rained down in every which direction, not into their footprint.

Find another controlled demolition that looks like Sideshow Bob.

>the goyim know...

hes mocking us, we demand answers!

100 floors falling to the ground will make quite a mess no matter how controlled

kek

>Twin towers rained down in every which direction
>not into their footprint
kek

>ignoring the nanothermite present on-site
>complete lack of aircraft debris at pentagon
>total fabrication of that 'lets go' shit
>mossad agents apprehended around the area of the attacks with vans that reeked of fissile materials to explosive-detecting canines brought into examine, then ordered to be let go

it doesn't matter. your own government executed three thousand citizens to give cause for wars of aggression but despite this thing stinking to high hell fifteen years on, your country wouldn't do a fucking thing about it even if obama walked up on stage and admitted it was a cia-influenced and constantly monitored event.

america is doomed.

That's not a twin tower I don't claim to have an explanation for 7.

However on the South Tower you can very clearly see it tilted towards the area where the plane impacted. The outer structure is like a wire frame of steel. It was compromised by the great holes the aircraft put through it and the ensuing heat caused what was left to buckle, dragging the core columns above that floor sideways and allowing the top section of the building to fall. As it fell it pushed down on the wire frame outer section, making it peel outward like a banana.

Have you studied the evidence? Have you really?

Can pet drool melt seal dreams?

>it doesn't matter
fuuuuuuck youuuuuu

Time was 'out of sync' when reality shifted to another reality. Hence, the news media reporting tower 7 collapsing way earlier than intended.

Its almost as if the orchestrators of 9/11 wanted people to believe the official story while scaring the shit out of Americans with the spectacular collapse.

> I don't claim to have an explanation for 7
Of course you don't kek

>a fucking leaf
That said, no. The conspirators were just morons. Imagine if instead of a George Lucas star wars prequels level convoluted false flag script they blew up a nuke next to the towers and pentagon. The towers would collapse (with or without thermite) and no-one would question the official story. America then proceeds to launch a wild goose chase for WMD's and actually invades Iran the way the NWO script intended. Why they chose to go with the airline hijacking is anyone's guess.

Iraq
>fix

Iraq and Iran... and Afghanistan, and Libya, and Syria, and Lebanon, and Sudan. All for Israel's lebensraum.

t. Wesley Clark

The following is true: yes. The previous is false.

Nice one, hotshot. You should basically pour that sparkler over yourself and show us your extended knowledge by setting it on fire. You know I got this strange idea of you having some kind of hidden agenda, but I must be wrong, aren't I? :)

jet fuel cannot liquify steel beams
however, it can heat it up enough to soften and weaken it