This one is the most annoying for me. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of heat, where a person clearly doesn’t understand that heat can accumulate regardless of where it comes from.
It’s like saying a garden hose cannot fill up a swimming pool because the mouth of the garden hose isn’t as big as the pool.
It’s not even that. It’s a refusal to acknowledge the beams don’t need to melt, they need to soften just past load carrying capacity. Metal increases in ductility with heat until it slowly becomes liquid and skyscrapers have a fuckload of weight on them
The whole conspiracy theory centering around Building 7 completely neglected that the sprinklers simply weren’t able to be turned on, or work with any pressure, and that the building design was enabling the fire to reach stupidly high temperatures.
They evacuated the area when the building started BULGING and a column was shifting out of it’s socket.
Perfectly consistent with loss of strength in the beams.
I am 99.9999% sure it has already been proven that jet fuel alone was able to defeat the structural integrity of the steel used under those loads, but too lazy to check because disproving a disproven again isn’t worth the effort.
No need to add extra details for conspiracy theorists to latch onto.
I saw it something like that in Germany on ARTE, but they didn’t produce it themselves. Maybe BBC or so.
It was a documentary looking into several of the conspiracy theories, debunking them.
The airliner’s aluminum is the simpler explanation for molten metal than any “thermite” ideas.
I just searched for it, also with chatpgt help, but can’t point a finger to the three or for documentaries that seem to come up, it’s too long that I’ve seen it.
That one doesn’t bother me quite as much, just because it relies on some finer numbers regarding the structural properties of materials, that people won’t realistically have day-to-day experience with. They have to trust sources, which I do understand people sometimes being reluctant to do for whatever reason.
The concept of heat accumulation in an enclosed space is something everyone has experienced, though. If they have cooked, or gotten into a car in the summer, or any other manner of experiences, they should realize how it works with just a minute or less of thinking. If you contain heat, say, inside of a building, it can build up. Simple as that. Very intuitive, can be fully understood by even a small child. These folks would understand it too, if they just thought about it for a second instead of just believing randos on the internet who are appealing to their feelings.
This one is the most annoying for me. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of heat, where a person clearly doesn’t understand that heat can accumulate regardless of where it comes from.
It’s like saying a garden hose cannot fill up a swimming pool because the mouth of the garden hose isn’t as big as the pool.
It’s not even that. It’s a refusal to acknowledge the beams don’t need to melt, they need to soften just past load carrying capacity. Metal increases in ductility with heat until it slowly becomes liquid and skyscrapers have a fuckload of weight on them
The whole conspiracy theory centering around Building 7 completely neglected that the sprinklers simply weren’t able to be turned on, or work with any pressure, and that the building design was enabling the fire to reach stupidly high temperatures.
They evacuated the area when the building started BULGING and a column was shifting out of it’s socket.
Perfectly consistent with loss of strength in the beams.
The most annoying part is that steel beams don’t need to come anywhere close to melting temps to lose structural integrity.
And that the building itself may contain other unknown components that may make a jet fuel fire worse
I am 99.9999% sure it has already been proven that jet fuel alone was able to defeat the structural integrity of the steel used under those loads, but too lazy to check because disproving a disproven again isn’t worth the effort.
No need to add extra details for conspiracy theorists to latch onto.
What about an airliner’s worth of pulverized aluminum?
There was a documentary of a private investigation where they looked into that very topic. It was on very late at night and I fell asleep.
Never seen it since. So pissed about it.
I saw it something like that in Germany on ARTE, but they didn’t produce it themselves. Maybe BBC or so.
It was a documentary looking into several of the conspiracy theories, debunking them.
The airliner’s aluminum is the simpler explanation for molten metal than any “thermite” ideas.
I just searched for it, also with chatpgt help, but can’t point a finger to the three or for documentaries that seem to come up, it’s too long that I’ve seen it.
That one doesn’t bother me quite as much, just because it relies on some finer numbers regarding the structural properties of materials, that people won’t realistically have day-to-day experience with. They have to trust sources, which I do understand people sometimes being reluctant to do for whatever reason.
The concept of heat accumulation in an enclosed space is something everyone has experienced, though. If they have cooked, or gotten into a car in the summer, or any other manner of experiences, they should realize how it works with just a minute or less of thinking. If you contain heat, say, inside of a building, it can build up. Simple as that. Very intuitive, can be fully understood by even a small child. These folks would understand it too, if they just thought about it for a second instead of just believing randos on the internet who are appealing to their feelings.
Im sure most people have experience with plastic becoming bendy before it melts. It’s not hard to translate that to metal.
Yeah, okay I’ll grant that.