Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed. No steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11. On 9/11, 3 collapsed, due to "structural failure from fires".

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]package 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

... the windsor tower was ~4x shorter than the world trade center towers and hadn't suffered an impact from a 747 and hadn't been doused in burning jet fuel at that impact site and wasn't within 200 feet of an equally sized building that had just collapsed

[–]AlanSmith33 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (26 children)

WTC was designed to withstand an aircraft impact, jetfuel doesn't melt steel beams and the first tower to fall wasn't within 200 feet of any collapsed building. Also, WTC7.

[–]package 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

  • Jet fuel, and fires in general, don't get hot enough melt steel beams but absolutely can reach temperatures that negatively impact the rigidity and maximum load of such beams

  • The first one wasn't but the second was, which makes this post's title a bit disingenuous as the three collapses were all part of the same incident

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Indeed. You don't have to "melt steel beams" to get them to buckle. Anyone who knows any kind of structural engineering or metallurgy or blacksmithing or anything knows this.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

That doesn't explain the freefall collapse through floors that were NOT on fire, designed and fortified to hold up the entire structure. The mass did not dramatically increase enough to erase physics.

[–]package 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

I know what momentum is.

When the cue ball strikes the other balls the energy is distributed to disperse them and thus the cue ball and other balls do not travel at the initial velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

Free fall means no kinetic momentum or gravitational energy is being distributed (slowing it down) - thus that MASSIVE extreme architecture necessary to hold up the entire structure of BOTH of the TALLEST buildings in the world (in the 70s) just happened to not offer any resistance at all. There was certainly MUCH more at play than just a fire for a few hours - "coincidentally" times three. Even if there was pancaking, it would have been a MUCH slower effect, the external frame of the building would have endured better, and there's little chance anything would have fallen symmetrically.

[–]package 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You clearly don't have even a clue what momentum is if you think the collapse would be slower and not essentially a free fall. After each successive failure, the next floor down is now taking the weight of all the floors above it in addition to the added force of their momentum as they accelerate downward. Each floor would fail more quickly than the last up to the point were only a small amount of the falling debris is actually encountering any resistance. And the "external structure" of the building does not exist in isolation; it gets pulled inward as the frame that it's anchored to is crushed downward.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Momentum would continue onward without resistance - but there's a fucking skyscraper in the way (plus wind resistance, jk).

You're clearly buying into the propaganda.

[–]package 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Step by step and simplified for the mentally challenged boomer:

  1. A floor collapses. You now have one floor of material in free fall for ~15 feet.

  2. One floor of material impacts the floor below with a greater load that its own weight, as it was just in free fall for ~15 feet and has gained momentum. This is just enough force to cause this floor to collapse as well. You now have two floors worth of material in free fall for ~15 feet.

  3. Two floors worth of debris + the momentum gained from the ~15 foot free fall impacts the floor below, collapsing it much easier than the previous impact. You now have three floors worth of material in free fall for ~15 feet.

  4. At this point so much debris has begun falling that the next floor collapses before all the debris has event hit it. You now have 4 floors worth of debris falling, with an increasing amount of that debris falling a greater distance and gaining more momentum before it impacts some part of the building below. When it does hit, the structure is no longer able to absorb the force and sections below the debris are violently thrown downward with more speed and momentum than they would have had from simply breaking off.

Now go back to the beginning of this comment and add around 1/8th of the weight of the building to the initial falling mass.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Those buildings crumbled to dust. A weakness at a particular hot spot might have BROKEN the building but not pancake down 150 floors as if the beams suddenly stopped existing.

Nice attempt. Try again?

[–]package 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Legit you people have an understanding of physics on par with a kindergartener or maybe even a preschooler.

  1. A skyscraper depends entirely on a network of precisely designed and placed beams and supports to channel and distribute the load of each additional floor. While obviously there is redundancy in the way these structures are designed, damage to these load bearing components, especially asymmetric damage or damage to multiple adjacent floors, greatly compromises the structure's ability to support its own weight. Combine this with a fire and its only a matter of time before catastrophic failure.

  2. Lets ignore the specifics of the WTC for a moment and just imagine that parts of an upper floor break loose in a tall building. By the time those parts hit the floor below, they'll be imparting a much greater force on the structure than they were when they were stationary. If that force is enough to break the floor below, you'll now have 2 floors worth of debris coming down on the next floor below which will now definitely fail under the increased weight. Repeat this process x50 and it ends up being a whole lot like what happened on 9/11.

  3. Are you expecting that a skyscraper would fall over like a tree rather than collapse? Think for a minute about what such a motion would require. At a bare minimum, the structure at the pivot point would need to be able to support the entire weight of all the upper floors rather than the 1/4-1/2 that it was previously holding, even as the tilt would start pushing the pivot point outward. Then you'd also need the upper floors themselves to remain completely rigid as they begin rotating around the pivot, even though they were not in any way designed to handle those kinds of loads.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.ae911truth.org

Already proven to be demolition.

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The fire was hot enough for the combined effect of the weakening of the steel from the heat and the bending from thermal expansion of the steel. (Steel loses about half its strength when it's 600 or 700 °C, and since the fire was hottest on the side of the building that the plane it, there were strong bending moments due to unequal thermal expansion).

This led to a buckling failure of the steel, and so to collapse of the buildings.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Propaganda bullshit.