4 ms·
> I don’t think anyone doubts that planes hit the buildings The doubt is whether the plane crashes could've made the buildings collapse. And they exist, becaus
by Sakos 3y ago
> I don’t think anyone doubts that planes hit the buildings
The doubt is whether the plane crashes could've made the buildings collapse. And they exist, because I've argued with them in real life.
- paganel 3y agoThose are reasonable doubts to have.
- Larrikin 3y agoNo they are not.
- paganel 3y agoWhat’s unreasonable in thinking that a plane that has hit a building at the top of it shouldn’t make the whole building collapse in just a matter of tens of minutes? If anything, this war in Ukraine has proved that buildings can sustain a lot and lot of damage until structurally collapsing.
- Sakos 3y agoI can't think of a single example in Ukraine of a building experiencing anything remotely similar to the sustained heat of 24.000 liters of aviation fuel burning and spreading throughout the building by way of the elevator shafts. Buildings are great at surviving individual impacts and explosions. They're not so great at aviation fuel melting through the concrete and steel supports and weakening them over time. If Russia started indiscriminately dumping thousands of liters jet fuel inside buildings and setting it on fire, we might see something remotely similar to what happened on 9/11. Until then, I don't know why Ukraine has any bearing on what happened back then.
- toss1 3y agoSame. Even argued with Flat-Earthers. It's wild. you make some progress, then they come back and say "you almost had me there, but what about XYZ?", and we're off to the races again.
- b112 3y agoIt's always circular, too. You knock down one argument, go through the discussion, and half way through they no longer realise they agreed that an earlier discussion point was invalid. thingx disproved... they say "ok". 10 minutes later "but what about thingx!" I've had to say "now you can never, ever mention thingx again, right?", but of course, they do, and look baffled when you say no.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tb_technical 3y agoBut the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse. The internal steel structure of the buildings reaching annealing temperature caused them to collapse. The jet fuel didn't need to melt the steel beams, it just had to get close, and gravity would do the rest.
- specialist 3y agoJet fuel (plus misc office combustibles) burns hot enough to turn airplanes (aluminum) into thermite, which is certainly hot enough to melt steel.
- WalterBright 3y agoYah, just look at what remains of an airplane that caught fire on the ground. Not much. The reason the SST that caught fire crashed was the fire melted away large parts of the wing. There's an enormous amount of energy in jet fuel, which is why it is used in jets.
- khazhoux 3y agoThis video disproves that conspiracy theory, and with just the right amount of "WTF-you-truthers-are-idiots" attitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA