Industrial Steel losses 50% of it's strength at 700 degrees. That was enough to them collapse.
This is pretty basic materials science (referred to has failure plastic deformation) and I never understand the "the planes didn't cause the WTCs to collapse." Yes they most certainly did and it's rather easy to do with just those planes and the subsequent fires.
The conspiracy is not that the planes caused the buildings to fall: that's very easily possible with no tinfoil hat theories necessary. It's all the other stuff surrounding the situation that is quite suspicious (one of you posted one of those about the insurance).
As for Tower 7, it was the fire from collateral fallout. It was also on fire but for a very long time. The fire only needs to be 600 degrees for a sustained period of time to weaken the industrial steel support, causing it to collapse at near free-fall.
The density of steel is 7800Kg/m3. The Yang’s modulus is 200GPa. The Poisson ratio is 0.27. The yield strength is set to be 310MPa, according to Steel A440 in U.S. The hardening modulus is set to be 2GPa, 1% of initial modulus.
This group shows that only 800F is required to cause significant structural integrity loss of the exact type of steel beam used in the WTCs:
https://youtu.be/4LFZA0Rx1gg?t=302
However, another group of engineers and scientists disagrees with the weakened steel theory for Tower 7 and this is a new thing. Here's what they have to say:
It's important that everyone be aware of "all sides" of credible arguments. Don't just stick with the naysayers or yeasayers. Look at all credible arguments. Read my comment and understand that there is a very large amount of data on all of this. While we definitely have solid science for almost all this, not all of the science is settled.
Found the due.
The steel in the support columns were wrapped in fire retardant which is why in the national engineering tests where they tried to weaken the beams they couldn't until they altered the test and removed the fire retardants.
Which they had zero evidence to justify such a condition.
The towers fell to explosives.
We know that for a fact tower 7 did so we can extropulate out that the other two did as well.
The planes were a distraction
Found the due.
Found the retard.
There's no way you had time to review the evidence and come up with a reply. Had you done that, you'd understand why not even the 9-11 conspiracy theorists use the very stupid and retarded talking point about "fire retardant."
Like you did, here:
The steel in the four support columns were wrapped in fire retardant
Go back, read, watch, come up with better arguments.
Hey cunt.
Those beams had fire retardant coatings. A fact found in the plans. A fact mentioned by the official nist report.
You can't dismiss a fact that destroys your bs rhetoric and not get called out for it.
Oh and cunt. I don't give a fuck how other ppl argue the truth.
Article describes the fireproofing used https://www.fireengineering.com/fire-prevention-protection/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers/
Official government commissioned report discussing the four tests which tried to replicate the collapse with jet fuel fire (wasn't even a jet fuel fire) but couldn't.
https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
And the wtc 7 study that found that the tower was demolished.
Oh fuk just read your name.
You're a known glowie.
Fbi or Soros funded poal infiltrator.
I mistreated you.
You are paid to be here to hide truths and cause confusion.
I remember you cunt from when you pretended that mrna drugs are vaccines.
(post is archived)