上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]MirrorNinjaBot 355ポイント356ポイント  (54子コメント)

mirror - GB, CA, AU, NZ, ZA restricted

[–]KuriTokyo 78ポイント79ポイント  (22子コメント)

Thanks from Japan!

[–]Jigsus 32ポイント33ポイント  (20子コメント)

Now say it in Japanese!

[–]crawfish2000 322ポイント323ポイント  (19子コメント)

Arigatō Mr Roboto.

[–]MormonsAreBrainwashd 41ポイント42ポイント  (15子コメント)

Funny story - My wife (now ex-wife) and I were visiting her aunt, who had taken in a foreign exchange student from Japan. We were all downstairs waiting for the student to come down and greet everyone. The second he comes down and everyone is saying hello and cheering my wife shouts "DOMO ARIGATO!" like... the first Japanese thing that came to her head. I hung my head in shame and distanced myself from her. Divorced her about a year and a half later. She was a goddamn embarrassment, constantly.

[–]Brett686 41ポイント42ポイント  (8子コメント)

Canada thanks you! NatGeo is dumb for geolocking this video

[–]Geordant 35ポイント36ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why? It's not called International Geography :P

[–]Brett686 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

True. But the MLB championship is called the World Series. It's a sick world we live in

[–]yetkwai 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series twice. So teams from two nations have won it, that technically makes it an international competition, doesn't it?

[–]shartsonsheets 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is it restricted?! CONSIRACY!

[–]Local-Lynx 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

This program has been paid for by the US Governemt and the United States Army. Join Today.

[–]tn1984 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

THANKS!

(whats the point of geoblocking stuff on youtube when a quick mirror search will yield the result)

[–]Halrloprillalyar 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a bot on bot fight, some block the content others mirror it.

There is no point.

[–]pyrusmurdoch 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cheers mate!

[–]googlehymen 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its a bot, but still highly appreciated.

[–]insert-amusing-name 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks, no clue why its blocked in hong kong!

[–]sidneyl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Le Thank You - FR

[–]Jammie1 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks from Denmark!

[–]Consloe_Prot 269ポイント270ポイント  (26子コメント)

420 is an inside joke!

[–]green_euphoria[S] 61ポイント62ポイント  (4子コメント)

Blaze it and feel my username

[–]Rodot 24ポイント25ポイント  (3子コメント)

In this moment, I am marijuana.

[–]sp4ce 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

not because of some phony steel melting.

[–]YouEvenReddit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

How many pots do you smoke?

[–]Soltra 73ポイント74ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well I guess 7/11 wasn't a part time job after all.

[–]narp7 71ポイント72ポイント  (13子コメント)

I lost it when the temperature hit 1776 degrees.

[–]PM_ME_FIREARMS 97ポイント98ポイント  (47子コメント)

THE TITLE IS WRONG!!!

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!!!

It can however weaken them.

But shouldn't we surround the beam with concrete? I don't know if that would affect or anything, but shouldn't experiments be as close as possible to the real thing?

[–]cenobyte40k 25ポイント26ポイント  (13子コメント)

You couldn't be more wrong. Wood can melt steel let alone jet fuel. How do I know, because people have been making things out of steel for thousands of years now. You can melt steel with just about any fire source you just have to keep the heat trapped inside something (Like say a building or a crucible)

[–]zerobeat 10ポイント11ポイント  (14子コメント)

From the comments. Can't tell if serious.

Heated steel loses strength but gains elasticity, it becomes less brittle and less likely to fracture. A boxed reinforcement like the WTC would see the melting structure folding on itself until the fire was smothered and the weight would essentially forge the steel in place as it cools making the structure even stronger than it was before the fire.

[–]zefy_zef 30ポイント31ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but you can't expect the i-beams to twist in a way congruous to good building structure.

[–]Gatmatic87 19ポイント20ポイント  (7子コメント)

I swear these people have no Idea how steel works......everyone should take shop and physics in high school.

[–]NorthStarZero 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

No kidding. That metalworking class I took in Grade 10 paid dividends multiple times over.

This would make a great video:

1: Get a chunk of 2" square tubing ;

2: Bolt it to something solid on one end;

3: Have someone stand on the other end;

4: Start an ordinary campfire under the tubing;

5: Watch as the steel heats up, and somewhere near when it hits dull red, bends, dropping the dude on the end of the beam on the ground.

[–]Novyac 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

[–]TheresanotherJoswell 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

FIRE ONLY STRENGTHENS HIM

TIL the twin towers were Targaryans.

[–]gargoyle_mayonnaise 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!!!

All kidding aside, the jet fuel isn't the only thing that was burning in the WTC. Lots of other materials in the building would have then caught fire and wouldn't some of those synthetic materials have a potentially higher burning temperature?

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!!!

This Firefighter disagrees.

NYFD Survivor Shares Jet fuel/Molten Lava Story at Ground Zero Box beam melted.

[–]iziizi 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

Introduce oxygen via updraughts and you basically have a furnace. I bet some steel did melt in amongst it all given the different conditions.

[–]zefy_zef 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought the molten pool underneath wasn't steel anyways.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

FEMA said this.

It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. Source We're still waiting for that detailed study.

[–]Kumdogmillionaire 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was molten metal, not steel

[–]SpicyWalrus 151ポイント152ポイント  (4子コメント)

Lies. They disguised dank memes as steel beams

[–]TimeBlocks 23ポイント24ポイント  (14子コメント)

video is blocked in my country

  • NZ

[–]THE_LURKER__ 54ポイント55ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ooo the conspiracy starts...

[–]astrograph 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was probably blocked by the cigarette smoking guy from xfiles

[–]hopenoonefindsthis 22ポイント23ポイント  (7子コメント)

Even if the fuel cannot completely melt a steel beam, it doesn't mean a building won't collapse. Metals loses its strength quite significantly at high temperature.

[–]Myte342 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Under load, metals can lose structural integrity at quite low temps... far lower than people realize many times.

[–]BellyFullOfSwans 94ポイント95ポイント  (445子コメント)

I watched the video and it was a cool experiment, but the nature of the experiment involved a pool of jet fuel.

The argument for not fireproofing the steel beam in the experiment is because the initial explosion (an event which would have burned off the jet fuel) would have burned it all off/dislodged it.

Im not arguing for any theories....just questioning this process. Could I get an ELI5 on this one?

How is burning an untreated steel beam over a pool of jet fuel similar in any way to the official story of 9-11?

[–]omgitsalion123 186ポイント187ポイント  (360子コメント)

It isn't a perfect analogy, but, given that this took only 4 minutes to fail completely without a load, one can imagine a period of burning 15-20x as long could produce the same results.

Anyone who believes that the steel could NOT have failed during 911 needs to speak to a material scientist (me).

Spoiler: it could have..... and did

[–]Ukani 59ポイント60ポイント  (218子コメント)

I doubt it was even the jet fuel that caused the collapse. The jet fuel just provided the initial fuel for the fire. Once the fire got to burning for a few minutes the floors around the crash probably turned into an oven and the fire was able to sustain itself. Thats my theory at least.

[–]omgitsalion123 51ポイント52ポイント  (211子コメント)

Very well could've been. Point is it wasn't a set up demolition planned by bush as many would like to believe.

[–]Chenstrap 66ポイント67ポイント  (183子コメント)

I just think its hilarious that there are actually people that believe a structure could not possibly be weakened enough to collapse after being slammed into by a jumbo jet and the resulting fire.

[–]Mohammed420blazeit 48ポイント49ポイント  (38子コメント)

If you go to a conspiracy theorists echo chamber they will inform you that since no other building had ever collapsed in that manner then it obviously could never have collapse in that matter.

That's some grade A logic right there!

[–]Chenstrap 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Mohammed420blazeit"

Oddly relevant.....

[–]Azothlike 16ポイント17ポイント  (12子コメント)

Saying no other building has collapsed that way is a small tangential statement. Saying that other similar buildings have burned hotter, and longer, and not collapsed, is actually quite relevant.

[–]Rodot 16ポイント17ポイント  (9子コメント)

But not after a fucking jumbo jet rammed into the side, which is where that argument falls apart. I mean, if slamming a 2000 lb bomb into the side of a building isn't going to take it down, then what will?

[–]The_Music 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, a 767 has a maximum take off weight of 395,000 lbs, and was fairly loaded on 9/11, so it likely weighed much more than 2000 lbs.

[–]coaxfun 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least 15,000 gallons of jet fuel, or 125,000 pounds of Jet A-1 fuel. Just imagine the kinetic energy alone...

[–]yetkwai 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

A plane did crash into the Empire State building... but it was a smaller plane, and the ESB has a lot more steel in it since skyscrapers were new when it was built so they put a lot more steel in it than they do for modern skyscrapers.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I believe the empire state building is made of stone, which at least partially provides support.

Also, the aircraft that hit it was a B-25. It's 53' long with a wingspan of 67' and its empty weight is 19,480lb

A 767-200 is 159' long with a wingspan of 156' and has an empty weight of 181,610lb - or about 9.3 times the mass of the B-25. That's without jet fuel of course.

[–]ChanceTheDog 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But did they burn that way after being slammed by a commercial airline?

[–]BoneMachineNo13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. The foil hatters don't know what unprecedented means.

[–]metallicabmc 22ポイント23ポイント  (43子コメント)

I think it's hilarious that people think the government is organized enough to do that and keep it a secret without any compelling evidence leaking out. The government couldn't even keep Bill Clinton's blowjob a secret.

EDIT: I'm saying the government can't keep a secret that big. NOT "The government can't hijack planes and fly them into buildings"

[–]Rodot 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hell, the head of the CIA couldn't keep his personal emails private. People don't realize that governments are made up of people just like you and me, except they all hate each other, never get anything done, and can never agree on an issue. Just the simple fact that is it more likely that this was a terrorist attack should be enough.

[–]aletoledo 11ポイント12ポイント  (25子コメント)

Didn't it take edward snowden to release stuff for people to learn about domestic spying? How did they manage to keep that a secret?

[–]metallicabmc 9ポイント10ポイント  (17子コメント)

Im not 100% familiar with that situation but hadnt there been all kinds of leaked info long before Snowden? Bits and pieces of evidence here and there. Where with 9/11 there's nothing but shoddy scientifically illiterate anecdotes that require you to jump to conclusions. I will however say this. There was a lot of government fuckery that day. A lot of shady stuff behind the scenes and I have no doubt that there were officials lying and spinning the story to cover their asses and I have no doubt that they took advantage of the tragedy to get the public to support war and further their agenda. That kind of behavior certainly fuels the fire for conspiracy theorists.

[–]aletoledo 7ポイント8ポイント  (16子コメント)

all kinds of leaked info long before Snowden?

Yes, but reported by conspiracy theorists and mainstream people said that was crazy. So the Snowden leaks were more for the mainstream.

they took advantage of the tragedy

Why is it so hard to believe that maybe the CIA helped things along as well? The way I see it, it just takes one of the dozens of possible oddities that day to make it an "inside job".

[–]Jackal_6 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

Yes, but reported by conspiracy theorists and mainstream people said that was crazy.

Not at all. ECHELON has been widely-accepted as public knowledge since the early 90s.

Hell, here's an article from '88.

[–]Dorkamundo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think it was even close to a secret, but there was no smoking gun they could point to in order to expose it until Snowden leaked the info.

[–]calrdt12 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

People were talking about mass surveillance way before he released that information. What he did was to expose how it was done and who the major players were.

[–]thediablo_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really? "the government" didn't keep Bill Clinton's affair a secret because there was no reason for them to.

I think it's a bit of conformation bias because you only know about the times the information was leaked, so it seems like the information is leaked commonly. The reality is the shit that's leaked about the NSA and whatever is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[–]faithle55 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

These are the people that believe that inexperienced personnel could have sneaked into the two WTC towers (and Building 7, presumably) enough explosives and wiring to demolish the building without anyone noticing and without wires being obvious all over the place, not to mention where the control desk would have been, the drilling of the holes in the columns...

Here's a page showing what complexity is involved in demolishing much smaller buildings without having to make it look as if it isn't a demolition...

[–]SandboxOfThoughts 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only logical conclusion is that terrorists should be encouraged to fly jets into even more tall structures. For scientific purposes.

[–]ThewordisBRAKES 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also hilarious that they don't think about the fact that a blacksmith can shape metal without melting it completely down to a liquid.

[–]yetkwai 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find it hard to believe that people would actually think that the government could pull off setting up explosives in building in a busy part of Manhattan without anyone noticing.

[–]being_ironic 4ポイント5ポイント  (55子コメント)

I have a contrary opinion and I'm a pretty reasonable person. The pentagon doesn't appear to have been hit with a passenger plane that vaporized, leaving very little in its path.

There are no photographs or videos of this ever occurring, and everyone nearby said bomb. Everyone on the news said bomb. Until they were told to say otherwise.

Weather cameras had their footage promptly taken away.

I'm not easily fooled and I hate to encourage conspiracy theories, but 9/11 was the greatest thing to happen to the bush administration and big oil at the time, and it's just so tempting to blame foreign brown people that hate freedom, but I have my doubts.

[–]4698468973 15ポイント16ポイント  (34子コメント)

EDIT: So, yeah, you're not nearly as reasonable as you pretended to be here, you're just another run-of-the-mill nutter. See downthread. I guess "I think 9/11 might have been a conspiracy, but I'm a reasonable person" should be considered a dog-whistle now. I feel foolish only for treating you as though you might actually be reasonable and open to the idea that it wasn't in fact some vast conspiracy.

You must have missed the photographs of the Germanwings airliner that recently crashed in the mountains. It would be a reasonable analogue for the airliner crashing into the Pentagon (airspeed, angle of attack), and it was totally disintegrated. Just nothing but pieces and a scar on the land.

Of course people said bomb. They heard a "boom" and felt an impact and everyone watches too much TV so they all assumed, "BOMB".

I'm not so sure it's all that reasonable to conclude conspiracy once you start considering the sheer number of people involved, all of whom would have to be repeating the same lies, and many of whom would have all the motivation in the world to say otherwise.

[–]deckchair 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Someone people will always benefit from war its impossible not to have people benefit from it, but thats not a logical jump to say it was a planned event by US govt. Also there are aftermath pictures that show aeroplane parts near the pentagon.

[–]MartinSchou 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

he pentagon doesn't appear to have been hit with a passenger plane that vaporized, leaving very little in its path.

What, exactly, do you think a passenger airliner is made of? It's a very very thin skin of aluminium stretched on top of some thin beams of aluminium. It is basically an aerodynamic soda can made as a jigsaw puzzle, and you're somehow expecting it to leave a massive impact on a building that was designed to withstand actual bombs? This is what a bird will do to the front of an airliner.

Now close your eyes and imagine that the bird was instead an almost immovable slab of concrete and steel designed to withstand bombs. The plane would no longer look even remotely recognizable as a plane.

And the damage the Pentagon sustained wasn't exactly negligible. It just wasn't nearly as dramatic as the World Trade Centre for a few reasons. 1) The Pentagon was build to withstand bombs. 2) The Pentagon is only five stories tall.

[–]ChiliGlass 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just a side-note, the nose of the airplane is one the softest part of the entire airplane, if a bird hit for example the wing it would barely leave a dent.

Just saying this in case people are scared of flying because of birds :p

[–]octagonner 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed. Except tower 7 was not hit by a jet. Did not have significant structural damage or jet fuel fires, and still collapsed at free fall speed into it's own footprint.

[–]Forgot_password_shit 16ポイント17ポイント  (26子コメント)

Boeing 767, an aircraft that weights up to 200 tons, flies into a building at around 529 miles (851km) per hour. In what world would it be in any way feasible that the building would not be structurally severely punished?

[–]notepad20 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

851 km/h is cruising speed at altitude.

Your probably looking at more like 400-600 km/h, especially for controlled impact.

[–]Lookingfortruths 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

the planes on 9/11 impacted at around 400-600 MPH.

one was 470 MPH, the other was 590 MPH.

That is how fast the planes were travelling when they hit the towers

[–]Sciensophocles 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The heat of the fire matters. Jet fuel burns hotter than paper and carpet. I would imagine the jet fuel played more of a part than the secondary fires.

[–]enforcemENT 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That doesn't really hold true, the jet fuel is important here. All fires do not burn at the same temperature, whatever was in the building wouldn't have generated a higher temperature than jet fuel.

[–]isakmp 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The NIST report is an interesting read, even for non-engineers. As I recall, the report said that the floor beams sagged, pulling the vertical columns inward. The vertical columns failed (snapped) from side loads that they were not designed to handle. The report said that this failure mode was not what they expected to find.

[–]joeyj0j0 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

well that explains building 7 then.

[–]Gizortnik 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

And the fact that it was hit by part of another building.

[–]adaminc 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The beam in this video was loaded, they welded weights on top of it, 3000lbs worth.

[–]UnSexeEnorme 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

You forgot all the melting aluminium from the plane itself. Aluminium melts at a much lower temp.

Also: 2Al + FE2O3 -> AL2O3 + FE + lots of heat

[–]omgitsalion123 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

I didn't mention any mechanism aside from combustion because that is all that is needed to mention, but, yes, oxidation of aluminum could've contributed. Point is that the collapse was a logical result of the incident. The attack was not an inside job that ended with a controlled demolition.

[–]UnSexeEnorme 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

A boeing contains 75 tonnes of aluminium. So it's likely this will have contributed.

I agree entirely. But good luck convincing believers.

It's like high school chemistry is part of the conspiracy.

[–]Gizortnik 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even with that, it's kind of an irrelevant question since a lot of the jet fuel was burned off in the initial explosion. It should have been mostly starting additional fires rather than just weakening the steel itself.

The main point isn't that jet fuel itself melted the steel structures, but that the multiplicity of fires (and severe damage to the structure itself) sufficiently weakened the structure under load to cause a failure.

But you're definitely right, they need to talk to people who actually know how this shit works.

[–]aletoledo 4ポイント5ポイント  (47子コメント)

As a materials scientist, why didn't the floors immediately below the fires slow the collapse at all? Also what what do you make of the videos showing steel beams disintegrating (example)?

I'm not looking for a debate, I'm really assuming you're a materials scientist as you said and I wanted to get a professional opinion on these two points.

[–]katha757 2ポイント3ポイント  (38子コメント)

Not a material scientist, but you have to remember the plane did not crash into the top-most floor. For example, on tower 2 it hit between floors 77 and 85, out of 110 iirc. That means not only were 8 floors already damaged, but there are still 25 floors above with a lot of potential energy. Once the steel beams gave way on the damaged 8 floors, their weight and the weight of the 25 floors above started descending. This weight began compounding as it crushed floors below, increasing velocity until one of two things happens:

  • It reaches the ground

  • It reaches terminal velocity

What would have happened had the plane only hit the top-most floors? My guess is as good as yours, but I would wager they would have survived.

[–]Pokiarchy 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

What do you believe happened to building 7? Why do all these buildings fall like a controlled demolition? And what caused the molten sparks in the videos of the twin towers that strongly resembles thermite?

[–]NorthStarZero 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

Do you understand vector physics?

When a building collapses into its own footprint as one associates with a "controlled demolition" that really isn't due to the skill of the demo crew. In order for the building to fall anywhere other than its own footprint, some sort of side load or torque must be present to get it moving. There's a lot of weight there and it takes a significant side load to get a building to topple over.

"Controlled demolition" is more about placing charges to break up the building into lots of small, unconnected pieces. This is partially to make cleanup easier, and partially to make sure that the whole building comes down - you don't want half the building still standing, unstable and unsafe as hell, and having to send another demo crew into it to try again.

Given that the planes hit so high up, there wasn't enough of a torque vector to twist off chunks of building and fall clear. Instead, upper floors collapsed directly onto lower floors and pulverized them - not unlike a karate expert breaking multiple bricks. The bricks fall down; they don't fly away.

Once that cascade started, the building was going to collapse in its own footprint. Physics demanded it.

But unlike a controlled demolition, the building was not broken up into gravel by charges. So big chunks hit the ground and rebounded in all different directions - including hitting Building 7.

A controlled demo would fall the same way - physics provides no other options. But the rubble pile at the end would be very different.

[–]Ascott1989 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

No one ever seems to take into account the wind ripping through the buildings fanning the flames and basically turning the floor(s) into an actual crucible.

[–]MeltBanana 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

I never even thought of that, but that's a really good point. Anyone who's even blown on a fire knows how much hotter if gets.

[–]ajsparx 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

And anyone who's been in/on a NYC skyscraper knows how powerful the wind is up there. Supposedly some people have jumped off buildings and been blown right back where they jumped from.

[–]yetkwai 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

So you want them to build a new WTC tower in the exact same way and then put a bunch of jet fuel into it and light it on fir to see what happens?

Really this is just to prove that jet fuel can melt steel beams. The truthers can't use that any more. Now they have to claim that the steel beams were fireproofed and that fire proofing was so awesome that it would permanently prevent the fire from melting or even weakening the beams. When the argument becomes "this is impossible because well uhhh... fire proofing materials and stuff" you have to be a complete idiot to fall for it. Though you'd have to be a complete idiot to fall for it before.

[–]sphigel 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really this is just to prove that jet fuel can melt steel beams.

No, this proves that jet fuel can weaken steel beams enough for a structural failure. Melting the beams was never a pre-requisite for them to fail.

[–]kaptainlange 16ポイント17ポイント  (45子コメント)

It directly addresses the claim that a jet fuel fire cannot melt steel and therefore the buildings should not have fallen as a result of the burning jet fuel.

It demonstrates that the steel's integrity is compromised well before that melting point.

[–]frud 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole melting steel beams thing is a red herring, anyway. Steel softens at a temperature well below its melting point.

[–]Tommyboy420 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Ok this one is personal. My dad (retired FDNY) was there. He was across the street when the buildings came down. There were no detonations, no explosions. What he did mention was the constant bangs of people falling and hitting the ground and surrounding areas. My cousin was on the 14 th floor of the south Tower climbing up to rescue people when the building collapsed. They never found his remains. I get physically bothered whenever I hear "jet fuel can't melt steel beams". It's not a joke. People died. My Father is personal disabled from breathing in all the crap from ground zero because he spent 2 weeks there looking for his fellow firefighters and their remains. Can we please put this stupid saying to rest.

[–]Infams 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

"People died,therefore you're not allowed to be skeptical or make fun of what happened." Sorry,but thats not how it works.

[–]LethalWillis 33ポイント34ポイント  (0子コメント)

paid for by the jewish consortium of lizard popes

[–]MikeLuttmann 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thought this was a very clever joke until I found the Mirror.

Thankyou from Canada MirrorNinjaBot

[–]newoldwave 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Don't need to melt steel beams to cause a building to collapse. Just weaken them enough.

[–]Intrepid00 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I could show this to the crazy I see regularly in front of the White House and he would still wouldn't believe it. He could dig the iron, turn it into to steel, refine the jet fuel, set this up and he still wouldn't accept it.

[–]Mentioned_Videos 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Other videos mentioned in this thread:

▶ Play All

VIDEO VOTES - COMMENT
9/11: South Tower Collapse video compilation 15 - in all the videos I've seen collapse starts below the impact location, any jenga player knows the fall starts at the weak point. No it doesn't:
WTC 7 Collapse Full - Do you hear explosives? 13 - Fuck here it goes. Building 7 collapsed from the inside out. Don't believe me? here you can clearly see the penthouse collapsing (destroying the internal structure below) 7 seconds before the rest of the building goes down. What's left before...
THERMITE - It can CUT I-Beams and Girders 5 - This video is in direct reply to the one you posted. The guy used 1/100th the amount in your video and cut larger beams completely in half. Stop spreading disinformation.
Your Office Fire 4 - it seems like almost all the fuel combusted upon impact out of the other side. Well there was, ya know, like, a whole fuck load of burning office equipment in there too
9/11 NYFD Survivor Shares Molten Lava Story at Ground Zero 4 - JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!!! This Firefighter disagrees. NYFD Survivor Shares Jet fuel/Molten Lava Story at Ground Zero Box beam melted.
9/11 FEMA - Tom Kenney Interview CBS September 13, 2001 9:15pm (Rare Full) 2 - Here's the thing. I was there. I volunteered in clean-up/search and rescue efforts. I saw with my own two eyes. Firefighters, volunteers, first responders, almost everyone I spoke with had a feeling something was off. The words "controlled d...
9/11 Eyewitness - FOX Freelancer Harley Guy Mark Walsh 2 - eyewitness account of buildings collapsing from fire
Fuck Your Court Nigga! 2 - FUCK YO DANK, NIGGA!
Watch the WTC "Spire" Steel Disintegrate ("Dustification"/Molecular Dissocation) 1 - As a materials scientist, why didn't the floors immediately below the fires slow the collapse at all? Also what what do you make of the videos showing steel beams disintegrating (example)? I'm not looking for a debate, I'm really assumi...
Afroman - Because I Got High 1 - ..but because I got high.
Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 4 of 7 -How did WTC7 collapse 1 - Your doubts are based on false ideas.
9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero 0 - Doesn't that just breaks the laws of physics, energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another. You're telling me that a full tank of jet-fuel has enough energy to convert steal beams into a lava pit....
30-Second Reel of Building 7 Collapse Footage 0 - And tower 7 which didn't have any jet fuel burning in it?

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

Info | Contact

[–]tretizon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

what is this heresy

[–]nsa_assassin_bot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you know the riddle of steel?

[–]WildTurkey81 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not available from the UK. Now they really are hiding the truth from us!

[–]aglaeasfather 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was this narrated by Siri?

[–]justin2506 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

B.....but....Steel fuel can't melt jet beams

[–]knytrix 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

TIL jet fuel melting steal proves that explosives were not in place

[–]Berkut22 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, now put the beam vertically, with a dozen other beams around it, fastened together, with 104 floors of concrete running along it's vertical length.

[–]thewhiteman80 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't what kind of people ever believed steel was invincible

[–]Bugilt 8ポイント9ポイント  (16子コメント)

no molten steel.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 31ポイント32ポイント  (10子コメント)

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." James M.Williams, President Structural Engineers Association of Utah Source

"A descent beneath the WTC is a passage into a grotesque landscape of stalagmites formed by dripping metal,... A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower." The NYT Source

"What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals..." "It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together..." - Interim Bryan Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho Source

[–]ILoveDraugr 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I think he was talking about the video. The steel beam didn't turn liquid

[–]frud 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

You don't need to melt structural steel to make a building collapse, you just need to soften it.

[–]SlothsLoveDoom 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy guy and don't believe these theories, but how in the world is this considered a scientifically sound experiment regarding WTC?

One steel beam with a few bricks and a pool of fuel, versus a massive complex skyscraper with thousands of beams, a huge amount of engineering, avenues for fuel to travel, etc?

This seems too distilled into a small scale experiment to have any real bearing one what happened in WTC

[–]Kahnarble 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because there's a faction of tards out there who think jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt/weaken steel beams.

[–]Slavicinferno 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Listen. . . you can hear hundreds. . . no thousands of conspiracy theorists still not believing common sense. . .

[–]northener101 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Here's the kicker: When common people are shown 7 without any context at all, EVERYBODY says its a controlled demolition and laughs at the idea that fires could do this. So where's your common sense on that?

[–]ificouldinterject 1ポイント2ポイント  (52子コメント)

I don't believe it was an inside job, however I have some concerns with this.

  • it seems like almost all the fuel combusted upon impact out of the other side.
  • the beams are tied together to other beams, creating a heat sink;this video was of one beam.
  • in all the videos I've seen collapse starts below the impact location, any jenga player knows the fall starts at the weak point.
  • eyewitness accounts of detonations leading to collapse.

All of this and more leads me to believe the terrorists were a lot more involved with taking these buildings down than throwing a couple planes at em. I believe they infiltrated the building somehow and set multiple charges. The planes were just a way of demoralizing us more than just a demolition could.

Tldr; this video was made like mythbusters and begs the question.

Edit:(1hr) well idk what to say, i looked at all you have to say and i need to redact some of my statements...

[–]eyecomeanon 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

  1. Keep in mind that it takes a relatively small amount of fuel to create a rather enormous fireball. Especially if that fuel is splashing out into the air from an impact.
  2. There are two possibilities. If the beams are connected steel to steel, then yes. If they had the fire retardant between them, then that would act to isolate them from each other. Either way, the heat sink will only go so far to dissipate the heat. It would essentially increase the duration of the fire needed to warp the beams.
  3. Don't know enough about this one to speculate.
  4. Eye witness accounts are always sketchy. It's my understanding that the beams were in the center of the tower. If the beams warped and caused a failure, the collapse of the ceiling and/or concrete around it would displace air in the center of the tower outwards towards the broken windows. This would cause a sort of explosion of air outwards laced with all the dust and debris. This could easily be mistaken by an observer as an explosion. Same sort of effect of pouring some talcum on your hands and clapping them together.

[–]NeilNeilOrangePeel 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

in all the videos I've seen collapse starts below the impact location, any jenga player knows the fall starts at the weak point.

No it doesn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA&t=0m56s

[–]Myte342 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup, you can clearly see it crumple right at the point of impact and fire... which does seem to support the theory/science behind the steel weakening from the fire (and who knows what damage was caused by the impact itself, before you even consider the fire)

[–]hokaythxbai 21ポイント22ポイント  (8子コメント)

The collapse starts at the lowest floor with significant damage in both towers, not 5 or 10 stories below.

[–]dubdubdubdot 33ポイント34ポイント  (16子コメント)

Terrorists rigging the building with explosives is even more far fetched than the government doing it.

[–]anti-establishmENT 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

Did you know that the FBI gave a real bomb to the terrorists that bombed the wtc in 1993? It isn't that far fetched that some arm of the government could have had a role in 9/11. I mean current senators are still trying to get documents declassified that may prove Saudi funding of 9/11 but our government doesn't want the truth to get leaked to the public.

[–][削除されました]  (10子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]gnoani 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

    It's been proven that there were vans arriving at WTC 1 & 2 at about 3am weeks prior to the "attack" while renovations were taking place....

    Bro, vans were at my HOUSE during renovations. They're used to move large amounts of tools and materials.

    [–]h3rpad3rp 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I guess you better prepare for the inevitable plane hitting your house.

    [–]Soul_Rage 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    it seems like almost all the fuel combusted upon impact out of the other side.

    The fuel capacity of one of those airliners is pretty enormous; it's like 60,000+ L. To suggest it all burned up instantly seems hasty.

    [–]Glorfon 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

    For point 4 please realize that eye witness accounts are the most useless form of evidence.

    [–]definitelylegitlol 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You weren't there man, YOU WEREN'T THERE!

    But yeah, definitely, I was involved in a hit and run few years back. The different stories "witnesses" told the cops was pretty alarming. Guy came out of nowhere and clipped me while I was standing in a parking spot behind my car. Stories included different colored cars, me standing in the middle of the road, me not getting hit at all, me jumping in front of the car. All sorts of stupid shit.I can't even imagine the varying accounts told, with all the stress and emotions on that day.

    [–]Gundamnitpete 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    it seems like almost all the fuel combusted upon impact out of the other side.

    Well there was, ya know, like, a whole fuck load of burning office equipment in there too

    [–]GravitySkies 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Also this video doesnt really account for WTC 7, that wasnt even hit by a plane.

    [–]tritter211 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Reports

    In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments.[8] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse

    [–]kilogttam 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

    So two building hundreds of stories high rain thousands of tons of steel in the immediate vicinity of a smaller building and it's weird that it collapsed because it didn't take any direct impact from an airplane?

    [–]ADavies 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Someone on Reddit modifying their opinion based on new (to them) arguments and information?! The end times must be here.

    [–]TittlesMcJizzum 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Yes, kind of. It weakens and makes the metal soft enough to be crushed by the tonnage of whatever is above it.

    [–]fenn138 2ポイント3ポイント  (42子コメント)

    Well, that settles it right?

    [–]Starting_over_IRL 33ポイント34ポイント  (32子コメント)

    i dont believe the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, but i will say this is kind of a shitty test. this is very concentrated on a much smaller beam then the ones supporting a giant skyscraper. and also, how does the melting beams on the upper floors affect the support of the beams in the ground?

    omg maybe i am skeptical..

    [–]EPMason 34ポイント35ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I'm a hobby blacksmith these days. Far from professional, and I can barely create anything useful yet. But I can tell you with certainty that steel at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit behaves in a similar manner to playdough. At anything above 400 degrees, steel starts to lose it's heat treatment. The carbon structures inside it start relaxing. At 1600-1800 depending on the specific steel, the carbon structures have all but completely dissolved into the iron. Carbon crystalline formations in steel give it it's strength. Without the carbon to strengthen it, and already having a generally "mushy" consistency, I would never expect steel to do anything structural. Hell, if you heat a rod or piece of flat stock that hot and just hold it, it will droop under its own weight.

    Can a jet fuel fire melt steel? No. Not easily anyway. 2000 degrees is not melting. Can it turn steel into playdough that can't even support its own weight? Yes. Yes it can.

    [–]Lars0 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

    this is very concentrated on a much smaller beam then the ones supporting a giant skyscraper

    Material of large structures being identical in behavior to smaller pieces is fundamental to material science and mechanics. Similiar properties is the only way we can make such complex structures at all, by understanding that stress and strain are independent of bulk size. We use very tiny test coupons to determine all of the material properties which are then used to construct much larger parts.

    [–]Xetanees 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The whole test was scaled down from full scale.

    They also showed that steel didn't have to be at its melting point to give way when strained with weight. The temperatures in WTC would have easily gotten to 2000° and weakened the beams, especially since there were other fueling sources for the fire (ceilings, walls, carpetting, furniture, etc.).

    It's a pretty clear-cut test.

    Edit: And to answer your other question, imagine cutting all support for weight halfway up a building. The steel on the bottom now has to support that weight too, which it isn't designed for.

    Buildings today don't have just bigger and bigger steel at the bottom, they have systems that have beams supporting one another to reduce the load on each piece.

    [–]FermiAnyon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's designed to hold up the building. It's not designed to stop the inertia of a falling building. The building wasn't supposed to be falling. That's outside SOP... for buildings.

    [–]gayroadtrips 14ポイント15ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Once the support structure of the beams above is offset, then the structure below it is now supporting much much more weight than it was designed to (and forces would be applied on the lower structure in a very odd way).

    The heat concentration is also a moot point. The towers collapsed 30min after being exposed to the heat. This beam melted within a few minutes.

    [–]gilbes 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

    this is very concentrated on a much smaller beam then the ones supporting a giant skyscraper

    How are you not making the connection here? The beam was smaller, but it was also not supporting a giant skyscraper.

    The nut jobs talk about the nature of steel beams. This tested steel beams.

    how does the melting beams on the upper floors affect the support of the beams in the ground

    Steel beams do not have an infinite capacity to support stuff. The beams in question were not designed to support dozens of floors of a giant skyscraper crashing down on top of them.

    So can you see why your issues are so weird. The test was unacceptable because the beam being tested was not supporting a giant skyscraper, yet you feel that the beams below the impact that failed should not have despite the weight of the giant skyscraper crashing upon them. The weight of the building is first important and then not. This kind of convenience of detail is how many conspiracy theories live.

    [–]PunksPrettyMuchDead 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Go bend a spoon back and forth quickly until it breaks, and then put your finger on it. It's going to be hot. Weakening a structure until it collapses will put enough pressure and energy into the material being crushed to very rapidly increase its temperature. Scale it up to a building the size of a skyscraper, and yeah, the amount of potential energy in a building being turned to kinetic energy will melt the shit out of large amounts of metal.

    [–]psuedopseudo 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    No, because the kind of people who believe in conspiracies like this will always disregard the 99% of evidence that points to the sensible explanation. You can never convince them. There are still people who believe the moon landing never happened.

    [–]Tightbutthole 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

    What an amazing overgeneralizaion. I think there is a small percentage who are absolutely convinced, but the majority of "Truthers" or "Foil Hat wearers" just see a bunch of suspicious events that warrant more questions. People become enraged when you ask questions about a sensitive emotional issue.

    I don't have my mind made up, and I will definitely take this video into account. I don't want to believe the government had anything to do with it, but there is enough evidence to at least keep my mind open and ask questions.

    [–]green_euphoria[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Those interested in this topic might also enjoy:

    http://flappyplane.net

    [–]Soundwavetrue 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Shameless advertising.
    I like it

    [–]green_euphoria[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I've got no affiliation with the game but it made me laugh. Equal parts morbid, infuriating, addicting, and hilarious

    [–]didled 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This will be good

    [–]raw11j 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

    What conspiracy tards always ignore is that a metal beam doesn't have to melt in order to collapse. Catastrophic damage weakened the support structure enough to cause it to buckle. The entire top level of a building falling on the lower level was enough to crush the support structure below and cause the entire thing to collapse.

    [–]5arge 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Two planes hit two buildings, but three buildings fell into their footprints. Three. Please explain Building 7 to this conspiracy tard.