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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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 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. Though admittedly a powerful one.
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.
You make a destabilizing point...
The problem with these sorts of arguments is that they don't apply to WTC7.
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.