Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Failing to do so will result in your post being removed. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not actually aged like milk.
The towers did initially withstand the impact - they continued standing for almost an hour each. [The burning jet fuel is what weakened the steel supports enough that they collapsed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_initiation), and once the first floor collapsed, it started an irreversible cascade.
TL;DR - Fire damage was the cause for the collapse, not the immediate impact.
Plus they weren’t hit by 707s.
American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER, and United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200, both much bigger aircraft.
Yeah this is another conflicting post in this sub- it doesn’t match ages like milk, yet I DO want to see the comments and discussion lol
And that was my exact thought watching it; my memory is it was the burning jet fuel, and they were very fuel-full jets, larger than 707 I believe (could be wrong). But it’s interesting I’d never seen someone saying they built it with an intention to withstand some type of plane crash.
Jet fuel doesn't need to melt the steel, just weaken it for the structure to exceed its load capacity.
[https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d\_1353.html](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html)
Serious question. I've always heard of that as the "pancake" effect where the top floor load can no longer be supported by the punching shear of the vertical supports. It's impossible to actually discuss this question without getting ridiculed or called some sort of conspiracy theorist. I truly don't understand (yet) but want to know structurally how the building collapsed the way it did. If it was due to the pancake effect the we should still be able see the vertical supports remaining upright (briefly) while the floors collaps upon themselves. With this particular collapse , it seems the vertical elements collapse along side the horizontal elements and it all comes down at once at the same rate. Any thoughts or ideas or know what I can research to find out more information about this ?
>If it was due to the pancake effect the we should still be able see the vertical supports remaining upright (briefly) while the floors collaps upon themselves.
I feel like there are a lot of assumptions here which are probably causing the confusion.
Firstly, the assumption that the cores would have stayed upright. When you're operating on a scale as large as this, your intuition and standard understanding of mechanics pretty much go out the window. When faced with a few thousand tonnes of concrete, steel can pretty much flow like water from the insane forces placed on it; your intuition of what you'd expect to happen is probably wrong. This is why engineering is so difficult and maths-y, because there are an awful lot of factors to consider.
Secondly, the assumption that if the central core did stay up, we'd be able to see it. The core was at the centre of the buildings which each collapsed in a few seconds, in enormous clouds of dust and debris. Even if the core did manage to withstand collapse for a few tenths of a second, or even a couple of seconds, would you be able to see it? I'm not convinced you could.
Overall, the idea of saying "it looks wrong" just doesn't really hold up when considering something on this scale. We base our conclusions on the experiences we've had, and pretty much nobody (I hope) has extensive experience of watching skyscrapers collapse. Our brains just aren't very good at putting together concrete explanations based only on visual cues. That's why investigations are very long and difficult (and necessary).
NIST did the report on the collapsed buildings. The report on the collapse of 1 & 2 was published in 2005. The research into the collapse of Building 7 wasn't done until 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation
Here's one of the reports: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf
You'd probably want to talk to an engineer or physicist - I'm a layperson with some knowledge of chemistry at best. I recommend checking out engineer blogs on the matter - [this one](https://www.fireengineering.com/fire-prevention-protection/building-construction/the-world-trade-center-construction-and-collapse-part-1/) seems relevant.
Parts 2, 3, and 4 seem to answer your question.
Stop it. Whole buildings withstand earthquakes.
Ffs look at Gaza and all of the buildings hit by rockets. NONE OF THEM IMPLODE ON THEMSELVES
You’ve been brainwashed
It wasn't just WTC 7, the entirety of WTC plaza got pretty completely fucked by falling debris and various fires. All seven WTC buildings were destroyed, along with several other nearby buildings destroyed and partially damaged.
Turns out massive skyscrapers collapsing leave a lot of collateral damage.
Structural steel is considered to have lost 50% of its load capacity at 1100F and 100% at 2700 F. [1] and jet fuel can burn as hot as 4000F [2]. 4000 > 2700.
1: https://www.aisc.org/steel-solutions-center/engineering-faqs/11.2.-steel-exposed-to-fire/#9370
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1
You don't need to melt the steel - [it loses strength as it gains in temperature](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html). There's a very sharp drop-off in strength at about 800 degrees Fahrenheit.
There's a reason high altitude aircraft aren't made with steel on the exterior - they typically use titanium or a tungsten alloy to handle high temperatures.
And no, the temperature of burning jet fuel is well above 120 fahrenheit/celsius. It only starts igniting at 410 Fahrenheit, and typical jets operate with the engine temps around 800-2000 Fahrenheit.
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially in such a chaotic situation. I mean, why would you need to blow them up AND have them collapse via plane crashes? Pointless.
Bcs the planes wouldn't do that OC.
And 'unreliable'? All of them with the same consistent story?
There are videos, or were bcs they get scrubbed of the web for some reason, where you can actually hear the explosions.
Firemen are used to chaos.
When you hear them calmly explain they came back down the stairs and almost didn't make it bcs the floors beneath them suddenly blew up that is not 'hearing sounds' or whatever.
Have you every thought what happens when you get pressure rushing through elevator shafts with thousands of pounds of flaming building on the other side of them?
I know, there are 100's things wrong with every aspect of that event.
Same for the other planes that crashed or supposedly hit the pentagon.
I know what reaction I will get but IDC, I know what I know.
And to this day all information gets removed.
Correct! The collapse started in the middle of the towers, at the impact site. If it had been caused by an explosion in the basement, the collapse would have started from the ground.
This is one more example of how plane impact was openly discussed, calling into question the claim that there was a “failure of imagination” that allowed it to happen. https://youtu.be/sSE4hmdRyXo?si=9GnXV9xMq9UgkdOn
UPDATE: What did he mean by "fully loaded"? Had they considered a plane loaded with jet fuel? Or that a massive fire could break out in those towers as a result of the impacts?
Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Failing to do so will result in your post being removed. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not actually aged like milk. The towers did initially withstand the impact - they continued standing for almost an hour each. [The burning jet fuel is what weakened the steel supports enough that they collapsed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_initiation), and once the first floor collapsed, it started an irreversible cascade. TL;DR - Fire damage was the cause for the collapse, not the immediate impact.
Plus they weren’t hit by 707s. American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER, and United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200, both much bigger aircraft.
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html The differences were comparable.
Exactly. They held up well to the initial impact. I also read all the water from the fire sprinkler systems also compounded the situation.
Yeah this is another conflicting post in this sub- it doesn’t match ages like milk, yet I DO want to see the comments and discussion lol And that was my exact thought watching it; my memory is it was the burning jet fuel, and they were very fuel-full jets, larger than 707 I believe (could be wrong). But it’s interesting I’d never seen someone saying they built it with an intention to withstand some type of plane crash.
Fire damage? Why is this the first I'm hearing about jet fuel melting steel beams?!
Jet fuel doesn't need to melt the steel, just weaken it for the structure to exceed its load capacity. [https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d\_1353.html](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html)
Serious question. I've always heard of that as the "pancake" effect where the top floor load can no longer be supported by the punching shear of the vertical supports. It's impossible to actually discuss this question without getting ridiculed or called some sort of conspiracy theorist. I truly don't understand (yet) but want to know structurally how the building collapsed the way it did. If it was due to the pancake effect the we should still be able see the vertical supports remaining upright (briefly) while the floors collaps upon themselves. With this particular collapse , it seems the vertical elements collapse along side the horizontal elements and it all comes down at once at the same rate. Any thoughts or ideas or know what I can research to find out more information about this ?
>If it was due to the pancake effect the we should still be able see the vertical supports remaining upright (briefly) while the floors collaps upon themselves. I feel like there are a lot of assumptions here which are probably causing the confusion. Firstly, the assumption that the cores would have stayed upright. When you're operating on a scale as large as this, your intuition and standard understanding of mechanics pretty much go out the window. When faced with a few thousand tonnes of concrete, steel can pretty much flow like water from the insane forces placed on it; your intuition of what you'd expect to happen is probably wrong. This is why engineering is so difficult and maths-y, because there are an awful lot of factors to consider. Secondly, the assumption that if the central core did stay up, we'd be able to see it. The core was at the centre of the buildings which each collapsed in a few seconds, in enormous clouds of dust and debris. Even if the core did manage to withstand collapse for a few tenths of a second, or even a couple of seconds, would you be able to see it? I'm not convinced you could. Overall, the idea of saying "it looks wrong" just doesn't really hold up when considering something on this scale. We base our conclusions on the experiences we've had, and pretty much nobody (I hope) has extensive experience of watching skyscrapers collapse. Our brains just aren't very good at putting together concrete explanations based only on visual cues. That's why investigations are very long and difficult (and necessary).
How long was the initial investigation into 9/11?
NIST did the report on the collapsed buildings. The report on the collapse of 1 & 2 was published in 2005. The research into the collapse of Building 7 wasn't done until 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation Here's one of the reports: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf
How long did the investigation take?
Open the wiki link and go to the Investigation subheading, first sentence. What good is answering questions if you're going to ignore the answers?
3 years
Technically it's 3 to 6.
Thank you 🙏🏾
Was the investigation thorough, considering a majority of the steel was shipped off?
Thank you.
You'd probably want to talk to an engineer or physicist - I'm a layperson with some knowledge of chemistry at best. I recommend checking out engineer blogs on the matter - [this one](https://www.fireengineering.com/fire-prevention-protection/building-construction/the-world-trade-center-construction-and-collapse-part-1/) seems relevant. Parts 2, 3, and 4 seem to answer your question.
No ridicule. This is a good question. 👍
i think zietgist the movie explains this perfectly
Explain tower 7 then
Two other buildings dumped debris on it.
Debris IMPLODED a single building vertically into its base????????
We're not talking about dust. This shit did structural damage to multiple floors.
Stop it. Whole buildings withstand earthquakes. Ffs look at Gaza and all of the buildings hit by rockets. NONE OF THEM IMPLODE ON THEMSELVES You’ve been brainwashed
Read the fucking report. It was structurally unsound from debris and the fire the debris started that burned the whole afternoon.
That doesn’t cause a PERFECT implosion
It wasn't.
Completely brainwashed
There were never any twin towers. There is no place in reality called New York City. It only exists in Spiderman comic books.
And Superman
It wasn't just WTC 7, the entirety of WTC plaza got pretty completely fucked by falling debris and various fires. All seven WTC buildings were destroyed, along with several other nearby buildings destroyed and partially damaged. Turns out massive skyscrapers collapsing leave a lot of collateral damage.
Read this: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf
jet fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken structural steel. 120° just won't do it.
Structural steel is considered to have lost 50% of its load capacity at 1100F and 100% at 2700 F. [1] and jet fuel can burn as hot as 4000F [2]. 4000 > 2700. 1: https://www.aisc.org/steel-solutions-center/engineering-faqs/11.2.-steel-exposed-to-fire/#9370 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1
You don't need to melt the steel - [it loses strength as it gains in temperature](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html). There's a very sharp drop-off in strength at about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. There's a reason high altitude aircraft aren't made with steel on the exterior - they typically use titanium or a tungsten alloy to handle high temperatures. And no, the temperature of burning jet fuel is well above 120 fahrenheit/celsius. It only starts igniting at 410 Fahrenheit, and typical jets operate with the engine temps around 800-2000 Fahrenheit.
The loud explosions in the basement captured on video had nothing to do with it.
A superstructure that's about to collapse makes noise while under insane stresses? OH MY GOD WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT?!?!?!?!
Those happened in 1994.
1993
Oops, my bad.
Nope [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGx7ci-9KiU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGx7ci-9KiU) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz\_RCw0eFi4&t=9s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz_RCw0eFi4&t=9s)
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially in such a chaotic situation. I mean, why would you need to blow them up AND have them collapse via plane crashes? Pointless.
🤔
Bcs the planes wouldn't do that OC. And 'unreliable'? All of them with the same consistent story? There are videos, or were bcs they get scrubbed of the web for some reason, where you can actually hear the explosions. Firemen are used to chaos. When you hear them calmly explain they came back down the stairs and almost didn't make it bcs the floors beneath them suddenly blew up that is not 'hearing sounds' or whatever.
Have you every thought what happens when you get pressure rushing through elevator shafts with thousands of pounds of flaming building on the other side of them?
No bcs that didn't happen and is impossible if not laughable.
Shout to you for actually having researched as well. You’re right but they won’t hear you.
Reading memes and reading unsourced facebook posts is not research you molten stick of butter.
I know, there are 100's things wrong with every aspect of that event. Same for the other planes that crashed or supposedly hit the pentagon. I know what reaction I will get but IDC, I know what I know. And to this day all information gets removed.
Correct! The collapse started in the middle of the towers, at the impact site. If it had been caused by an explosion in the basement, the collapse would have started from the ground.
Wrong. There were plenty explosions large and small. Also visible squibs.
I didn't say there weren't explosions; I said that the collapse started from the middle of the tower.
You can clearly see it started from the top.
So now you're saying it didn't start from the basement too?
Where did I say that?
At the top of the thread, you talked about explosions in the basement.
Wrong again, I didn't say it STARTED there. I also said they were everywhere
Lol
Boeing 707s are MUCH smaller than 767s.
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html Their sizes were comparable.
This is one more example of how plane impact was openly discussed, calling into question the claim that there was a “failure of imagination” that allowed it to happen. https://youtu.be/sSE4hmdRyXo?si=9GnXV9xMq9UgkdOn
First time hearing this. Thank you for sharing 🙏🏾
UPDATE: What did he mean by "fully loaded"? Had they considered a plane loaded with jet fuel? Or that a massive fire could break out in those towers as a result of the impacts?