politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Alright since you brought it up. My stance is that jet fuel CAN'T melt steel beams but they sure as hell can weaken them. However my own logic prevents me from accepting a bottom starting pancake collapse when the heat is at the top. Wouldn't that have been a top-down pancake at the very least?
It didn’t start at the bottom, but once the section above started to move, weight+inertia would begin to cause failures all up and down the lower section, mostly at the top but certainly along other points, as all of them are now under more stress than they were ever designed to withstand.
At those levels of force, welds, rivets, hell the beams themselves were no match; and the longer it went on the faster it got, and the weaker the lower structure became, in a run-away effect.
It collapsed at the point of impact where the steel weakened, then that crushed everything below it. The evidence is all over and has been for almost 25 years now. Just watch the videos.
Didn't it start from the top down? It's been 25 years but I watched it live and that's what I remember seeing.
Who you're going to believe? Some rando on lemmy or your lying eyes?
Well it has been a long time. I'd trust then more if I wasn't relying on a long faded memory.
What about:
The planes did the damage and they didn't need to rig the towers with c4, but they ignored the plot when they learned about it a month before hand and only shot down the planes that were going to "important" places.
BUT WHAT ABOUT WTC 7
IDK if you'rejoning, but jet fuel can 100% melt steel beams. That's basic physics
Jet engines themselves get to >3000F consistently, despite being actively cooled. More than enough to melt steel
Kerosene combustion releases a fixed amount of energy per unit of fuel. You can get it to an arbitrarily high tenperature if you want
I'm no expert by any means. Looking up briefly I see that jet turbines can get up to around 2000C/3500F give or take. Steel beam melting point is anywhere from 1375C+.
Fair enough.
But what about if jet fuel is not in a turbine? What if it's simply burning?
A pool fire (spill/open liquid fire) of jet fuel burns between 800C-1100C. Not enough to melt a standard beam.
The other point was that the pancake of the building was from the bottom, not from the top, where the fire would be.