There is a story going around about the 9/11 “conspiracy,” how “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” and how “normal things couldn’t cause this stuff!” This is why people can’t take conspiracy theorists seriously, because they ignore all evidence contrary to their predetermined view.
The shear cut on the beam could be one of 17 things. The most likely of which would be that the plane could have hit above that, which would deform the beam like that due to the shear stress caused by the weakened beams and excess load being carried. The side of the beam that faced toward the plane would begin to deform due to shear stress. Finally, it buckles and shears off due to the excess heat, load, and pressure. Here is an example.
The “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” argument was seemingly conjured out of nowhere (or an inherent inability to understand deformation of materials). There are no eye witnesses that say they saw “pools of metal” but even if they did, it could be explained by heated metal getting crushed into a pancake. Jet fuel burns at 1500 F and steel melts at 2750 F, so the statement itself is true. The steel didn’t need to melt to be deformed by the pressure, as steel loses half its strength at 1100 F. If there was a pancake, it would be due to the combo of thousands of pounds of pressure, the loss of support caused by the impact, and the heat. The pentagon has like 5 stories, the WTC had about 30 above it with steel supports and a much higher center of gravity. The damage and debris also depends on the amount of fuel left on the plane, angle of hit, velocity at which it hit that determines how much is left of a plane and where there are fires and burns.
For the Pennsylvania/Pentagon plane, I’ll just copy and paste this…
People claim that…
“1. There was no plane wreckage at the alleged crash site.
2. Flight 93 landed and deboarded in Cleveland.
3. The cell phone calls from Flight 93 were faked.
Claim 1 exploits the counter intuitive tendency of high-speed crashes (such as nosedives) to reduce planes to small rubble. In fact, the remains of Flight 93 were recovered from the crater produced by the plane’s plunge into the soft landfill.
Claim 2 was created from an erroneous news report stating that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, and embellished with a fantastic scenario of passengers being herded into an empty NASA research building and disappeared.
Claim 3 is based on the dubious theory that cell phones don’t work above 10,000 feet. Even if true, it would not make the calls from Flight 93 suspect, since the plane may have been below 10,000 feet when the calls were made.”
For the “clear picture of the plane” claim. One plane was going about 70 mph for landing/takeoff and stalled, the other was going near max speed in a descent. Assuming there was an HD camera available for security in 2001 (that other photo is from like 2 years ago on a dash cam which aren’t prevalent in the US), assuming a 24 FPS camera, and a 300 mph plane (440 feet per second, this is a vast underestimation by the way), that means that to catch 1 frame of the plane, it’d have to be pointed at the exact spot with an 18 foot wide girth from the building, which was just a blank wall, and even then it wouldn’t be in focus due to the extreme speeds, even assuming a high def camera in 2001. Apparently it would be a great security benefit to have a security camera pointed away from the building towards the D.C. skyline for incoming planes.
For the terrorism warning, the WTC had previously been attacked in a bombing so, it only made since. The color of sparks doesn’t mean anything, it easily could have been electrical sparks but I am sure there is a more intelligent explanation. WTC 7 is explained in the exact same way as the first two buildings. They use a BBC broadcast that shows a fake NYC skyline background (most likely from photos of other news networks) to prove that the US perpetrated a multi-country cover up. Similar to the people who believe the Earth is flat because NASA perpetrated a cover up involving the 70 space agencies in the world (the world was proven to be round around 500 years ago) before they existed (Occam’s razor, people).
Most people are deluded into thinking a conspiracy was perpetrated for oil. Following that reasoning, we wasted thousands of trained soldiers lives, 3,000 citizens, 2 amazing buildings, and billions on invading a foreign country for a couple million dollars in oil (that we are still buying to my knowledge)? I really don’t get that argument.