3
10

[–] goat-ditarod 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

Unless this fire was a controlled fire the building would have fallen toward the part that reached the temp that caused the beam failures first. But all three buildings fell essentially straight down. Controlled fire or controlled demolition are the only options. The fire option doesn't make sense.

2
1

[–] Laserchalk 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

You can even see how wtc 1 and wtc 2 started to tip to the side before they fell, but magically ended up going straight down.

11
5

[–] arniecuntingham 11 points 5 points (+16|-11) ago 

the reason the buildings collapsed was not due to MELTING. the heat from the fire caused the steel to EXPAND. the expansion caused the steel to buckle. once that happened, the building lost it's structural integrity and was not able to support the weight above it. this is no mystery. 30 years ago, I worked construction for a company that did fireproofing of steel beams. they are coated with insulation that delays this from happening in a fire. it is only good for about 1.5 hours. they have been doing this for decades. i'll give you another example; in the late 80's/early 90's (I don't remember exactly when) there was a junkyard fire in Newark nj, about 30 feet below route 78. the heat from that fire WHICH WAS OUTSIDE and far below the roadway caused the steel to expand and buckle. the road didn't collapse, but it was closed for a long time while it was being repaired.

4
6

[–] Laserchalk 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The fireproofing is enough to withstand office fires. You can light an entire building in flames and it shouldn't fall down. Many buildings have gone up in flames and have remained standing. The 3 building that fell down on 9-11 were the first 3 highrises to do so because of fires.

Buildings are specifically designed to withstand fires. wtc 7 fell down due to office fires and had minimal damage due to the collapse. Even if the fires did cause a single structural failure in one column of the wtc 7 building, there is no way it could cause a chain reaction and bring down the entire building. Even if it could bring down the entire building, there is no way the building would fall symmetrically at freefall speed.

Here is a video of wtc 7 collapsing. You can see how it looks exactly like a controlled demolition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

This is what happens when a demolition goes wrong. You can see that it's very difficult to bring down an entire building even when using explosives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38

This is what happens when a demolition goes right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Here are eyewitness accounts of molten steel in the rubble. It's important to note that NIST did not investigate for explosives at all despite molten steel found in the rubble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzBbhShJQo

Here is a thermal image taken by a nasa satellite that shows extremely high temperatures in the rubble https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

This series developed by an architect goes into detail about why these 3 buildings shouldn't have fallen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-YD0iKr0R8&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2kRVCdG6wzhlGmN9f3PHEO&index=3

Here is a scientific paper that analysis the wtc dust and finds nanothermite. A type of thermite developed for military applications. This also lines up with molten steel being found in the rubble. You can say the collapses weren't due to melting but that doesn't explain why molten steel was observerved. https://www.benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

8
-4

2
5

[–] bman0321 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Not expansion, but increase in malleability. Carbon makes steel stronger than iron because it prevents iron atoms from moving around. Heating steel allows the carbon to move making the metal softer. It's why blacksmiths heat metal to work it. I can't find the video but there is one of a concrete bridge collapsing because of a tanker fire under it. Pretty sure fire doesn't melt concrete.

1
2

[–] arniecuntingham 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

so steel does not expand when exposed to heat?

0
1

[–] Grospoliner 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You're both a bit off. While heat does increase malleability (workability) and cause expansion in steel, it also causes decreased stress capacity. At the temperatures of typical house fires (1000 F), steel that reaches that temperature loses half of its strength. The time it takes to reach that temperature can be determined by therodynamics (which I don't have the time to look up the specific equations for since I'm getting ready for work). Needless to say that the combination of heat weakening the structure, and the physical loss of structural members, it's only a matter of time before you reach yielding in the remaining elements, especially with a significant load above the impact point.

No explosives needed.

2
1

[–] meowmix56 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

I always had a sneaking suspicion that the whole thermite discussion was disinfo. Something a bit silly and outlandish that is encouraged in order to prevent the public from actually asking questions about 9/11. They highly publicize one easily falsifiable theory like this and suddenly anyone who asks uncomfortable questions about the jews or the saudis gets lumped together with it. Discredit by association.

2
2

[–] Laserchalk 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

It's not easily falsifiable. The reason the whole thermite debate exists is because there are traces of it found in the dust and evidence of molten steel in the rubble.

This is the peer reviewed science paper that takes 4 different samples of the wtc dust and finds red/gray chips in all 4 samples. These chips contain the elements for a thermitic reaction and will combust when exposed to high temperatures. https://www.benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

3
-2

[–] Grospoliner 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Controlled demolition is utter nonsense. It stems from a public who is uneducated in physics and engineering. Some people would rather cling to things that give them the illusion of control in their lives rather than recognizing reality for what it is.

3
0

[–] ZF_1 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Please explain building 7 :) why is it the only building ever to collapse from office fire?

1
3

[–] iamthecircus 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Jews rigged it with explosives. Who cares what the exact concoction of explosives were. There were most likely several different types.

3
3

[–] speedisavirus 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

There isn't any debate about this

4
10

[–] slickleg64 [S] 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago 

Yeah im sure we are all aware on voat that mossad "art students" planted thermite devices in each tower 6 months before their demolition.

0
7

[–] moviefreak 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

After emptying them out of anything of value. The art group was called Gelitin. I am just glad you all get it here on Voat.

1
2

[–] Gravspeed 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I just found this guys videos this weekend. Interesting stuff

0
1

[–] Anson 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Who did 9/11?

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/015/212/bfd.jpg

@alopix has the gayest possible opinion on 9-11. Go ahead, tell everyone how retarded you are

0
1

[–] Artooweaboo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Here is some light reading on thermal effects in steel composite structures. There will be a quiz later.

0
0

[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Relying on both planes to hit and set off major fires to cover up the thermite seems like an iffy plan.

0
0

[–] Grospoliner 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's because the entire premise is absurd.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)