this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2531 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ukraine’s security service blew up a railway connection linking Russia to China, in a clandestine strike carried out deep into enemy territory, with pro-Kremlin media reporting that investigators have opened a criminal case into a “terrorist attack.”

The SBU set off several explosions inside the Severomuysky tunnel of the Baikal-Amur highway in Buryatia, located some 6,000 kilometers east of Ukraine, a senior Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the operation told POLITICO.

“This is the only serious railway connection between the Russian Federation and China. And currently, this route, which Russia uses, including for military supplies, is paralyzed,” the official said.

Four explosive devices went off while a cargo train was moving inside the tunnel. “Now the (Russian) Federal Security Service is working on the spot, the railway workers are unsuccessfully trying to minimize the consequences of the SBU special operation,” the Ukrainian official added.

Ukraine’s security service has not publicly confirmed the attack. Russia has also so far not confirmed the sabotage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If you have any info you’d like to submit, please do so.

Well, here's what 5 minutes of research yielded

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fahrenheit-2777/

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C steel retains approximately 60% of its room temperature yield strength, and 45% of its stiffness.

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, here’s what 5 minutes of research yielded

The problem is, I read contradictory information, so both sides say they're correct..

For example, this...

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't look like contradictory information to me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)