Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
No, but they do go soft long before they melt.
It's a funny one that one because it's technically true! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to liquify structural steel, but it's also irrelevant, because a fire in a steel frame building doesn't have to burn hot enough to do so in order to bring about collapse.
That’s clear to me. What’s not clear is what the story of unmelted steel is supposed to point at.
Well the claim is that the government carried out a planned demolition of the towers after arranging the impacts in order to justify all the post 9/11 curbs on freedom and trillions in war spending in the middle east.
They claim this because they believe the collapse couldn't have been due to an airliner almost full of fuel crashing into the building, the explosion blasting the spray applied fire protection from the steel truss beams supporting the floor (where they weren't already destroyed by the impact itself) causing them to buckle after the crash but before the fire rating predicted, dumping several floors would of debris on the first undamaged floor below overloading it and starting a cascade to the bottom, all of this in a building that was designed with most of its rigidity in the outer skin, restrained from buckling via the tensile strength of the floors that were collapsing.
Because the steel didn't, and couldn't have melted.
I think it’s the other way around: they are convinced that the government did it and look for reasons why to support the tale.
That's what I mean to say, they think the government did it, and the fuel is a gotcha, willfully ignoring the reasons it isn't.