World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Wasn't that the reason though that the Twin Towers in NY fell, because the jet fuel melted the steel beams infrastructure?
I had read/seen that the buildings were actually designed to handle a plane crashing into them, but the architects didn't expect the metal beams to melt from the high-temperature burning jet fuel.
Melted beams or not, the WTCs design is what made it collapse like a peeling banana. The floors were essentially cantilevered out and held in place with a load bearing facade (for an open floor concept) There wasn't much holding the floors onto the facade, once the weight of the floors began to sag down it essentially started to lever and pull the beams of the central core apart from all sides like a banana peel.
I don't think those buildings were built to withstand an airplane, at least not the one they were hit by. In hindsight that open floor concept may actually have been a stupid idea, at least the way it was executed.
From what I saw on a show that covered that a long time ago, they were, but not for the larger planes that we have today, but the ones that flew back in the 70's.
My understanding is that the beams were sprayed with a fire retardant foam that is designed to protect it in the event of a typical building fire. But the violent impact of the jets would have stripped most of it off, and the jet fuel did indeed weaken the beams. They wouldn’t have melted outright, but softening them after already being damaged by the impact was more than it could handle.
That's my understanding as well.
And that the fire retardant foam was designed to be hit by an airplane and stay on, but it was just designed in those days for a smaller 737 impact, and not for a heavybody plane, so it got knocked off, exposing the beams.
Edit: Lol, ok, meant beams, not beans.
It's a conspiracy theory, and not a particularly intelligent one. Us normies like to make jokes like this mocking people who believe it, but they do actually believe it and will come up with some batshit insane logic to support their theories.
I haven't heard of anything to refute that, and have heard things to confirm that.
If you have any info you'd like to submit, please do so.
Edit: By refute that, I mean refuting that the jet fuel burning caused the metal to weaken onto collapse.
Well, here's what 5 minutes of research yielded
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fahrenheit-2777/
https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork#:~:text=All%20materials%20weaken%20with%20increasing,and%2045%25%20of%20its%20stiffness.
Jet fuel burns at 1500f, which is 815c. At 800c steel retains less than 20% of the strength that it has at room temperature. There you go, fully debunked with minimal effort and extremely basic facts.
The problem is, I read contradictory information, so both sides say they're correct..
For example, this...
That doesn't look like contradictory information to me.
I meant contradictory to the origional comment I was replying to, that was talking about alt reasons for the tragedy. Replied to the wrong comment.
The internet since 2001...? There's reams of examples of people who believe this crap and have posted it. I wouldn't be surprised if people have done PhDs where this conspiracy theory is featured heavily.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, are you saying that the jet fuel burning the metal beams of the building is true, or a conspiracy?
I'm saying the part of the comment you initially highlighted is a joke based on a well known conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. It's been so long since I read up on it, the beams may not have burnt. They just may have been weakened by the heat. Either way, it matters not as we have pretty good evidence that the twin towers did fall after two planes loaded with fuel hit em.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.