/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14812582]

Can burning jet fuel melt steel beams?

[Anonymous No.14812607]

No, but structural failure can occur at temperatures way below the melting point. A blacksmith does not need to melt a sword to work on it.

[Anonymous No.14812696]

>>14812607
This. At forging temperature, you can bend a one inch thick steel beam with your hands, with ease. And a jet fuel fire can definitely get that hot; you can manage it in your charcoal barbeque if you really want to (and aren't too attached to your barbeque).

[Anonymous No.14812731]

>>14812696
Also, jet fuel wasn't the only fuel. The buildings were on fire, so all sorts of shit was burning. And I guess that a steel beam is more likely to fail after an impact of, let's say, an airplane flying into that building.
Plus, I don't think that local heating helps with equal distribution of the load, especially if the structure isn't designed for that much thermal expansion.

>Summer temperatures can't melt steel rails

[Anonymous No.14812739]

>>14812582
It's a confirmed inside job through a million other venues. The only reason the jet fuel/steel beam meme is still being pushed is to deflect from all the easily demonstrable evidence that the US government did it.

[Anonymous No.14812849]

>>14812739
There's basically no outstanding questions about the actual physics of the collapses - having actually sat down and read through the NIST reports, they do a VERY thorough analysis of all the aspects of the collapses of buildings 1, 2, and 7 and even dedicate entire sections to ruling out other explanations (there's a great section in the report on building 7 where they run through stuff they tested for hypothetical blast scenarios and ruled out explosive-aided collapse).

In a nutshell - impacts damaged the support structure (planes for buildings 1 and 2, collapsing skyscraper chunks for tower 7), fires caused thermal expansion and weakening which greatly exacerbated the structural damage caused by the impacts, and once significant failures started the shitty tube-in-tube structural layouts didn't have enough redundant supports to keep the rest of the building up. It's a pretty sound explanation that is consistent with most of the documented evidence and - moreover - it's something we've seen other examples of in other tube-in-tube high rise designs over the last 20 years: The partial collapse of the Windsor Tower in Space, the total collapse of the Plasco Building in Iran, the total collapse of the Sao Paulo Federal Building, etc.

Was 9/11 shady as fuck? Oh - no fucking question - there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of people knew what was coming and either ignored it or actively prevented shit from being done about it. Some of those people are in the US private sector, some of those people are in the US government, some of those people are in the Israeli and Saudi governments, etc. But as far as describing what physically happened that day - the NIST report got it right.

[Anonymous No.14812876]

>>14812582
up winds can generate an enormous oxygen gain.
but then again if you look how much blasting operations went wrong its a miracle how straight it falls down after an accident.

can it melt a steel beam if you just poor some flue over it, probably not.

[Anonymous No.14812888]

>>14812849
>the NIST reports
Stopped reading.

[Anonymous No.14812893]

>>14812888
Are you losing your mind?

[Anonymous No.14812907]

>>14812582
No, but given enough oxygen flow ie. from updrafts through stairwells and elevator shafts it can cause it to weaken enough to fail to support the floors above it.
Question is, can it cause uniform heating to the point that a stricken building collapses perfectly downwards?

[Anonymous No.14812909]

>>14812893
How much do they pay you to spam this board 24/7?

[Anonymous No.14812910]

>>14812907
>uniform heating
The trick actually lies in the non-uniform heating

[Anonymous No.14812911]

>>14812876
then again, if the people who blasted the building, and the people who drove the plane are not the same, the people who blasted it probably saved thousands of life's, i mean such a building cant tilt like a tree.

[Anonymous No.14812912]

>>14812582
No but intentionally placed charges of thermite can

[Anonymous No.14812913]

>>14812909
Why, are you looking for a new employer now that yours is losing the war?

[Anonymous No.14812914]

>>14812911
can not cant * sorry

[Anonymous No.14812916]

>>14812607
Bonus points if this structural failure occurs exactly like a controlled demolition

[Anonymous No.14812917]

>>14812913
>t.
I'm just wondering.

[Anonymous No.14812920]

>>14812910
So you have weakened support columns on one side and structurally sound ones on the other, explain how your building doesn't just tip over yet falls straight down

[Anonymous No.14812923]

>>14812920
It wasn't hit in the bottom, but at the top. Stuff kept collapsing top down, not bottom up.

[Anonymous No.14812948]

>>14812920
At those energies pretty much everything behaves like a fluid.

[Anonymous No.14812991]

>>14812582
Why do all these 9/11 discussions focus on the fire and completely ignore the fact that planes completely smashed almost half the columns of the building. Honestly with that kind of damage, its a miracle that they lasted as long as they did, the fire was just the straw that broke the camels back.

[Anonymous No.14813141]

>>14812888
Have you actually sat down, read through them, gone through all the notes and details and decided on their credibility for yourself... or did you just see a bunch of random schizofaggots on /x/ say that it's all lies and scream "curse those handsome devils!"?

[Anonymous No.14813142]

>>14812991
Do you really not know the answer to this question?

[Anonymous No.14813153]

>>14813141
Of course not. He's the lunatic love child of /x/ and /pol/. Just look at the pictures in this thread he keeps using
>>/sci/image/WI5uIalvEF8rmLmifTfNcw
>>/sci/image/XDa2HTkvpQ4wxEnKHSh3gA

[Anonymous No.14813188]

>>14812920
>explain how your building doesn't just tip over
what, you mean like this?

[https://archive dot ph/uy5Hc No.14813193]

>>14812582
Bad OP pic.