ultimatecub

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@AsherShah9 @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra What it CAN do is weaken it.

Steel’s structural integrity already halves at 1100°F, becomes a whopping 10% of what it was at 1200°F, and begins losing strength at 400-600°F.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@Lapillusfanatic @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra “without being hit”

Oh it got hit. By debris.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@Stan_The_Man369 @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra But it DOES burn hot enough to weaken it.

How much?

Jet fuel burns between 800-1500°F

Steel’s structural integrity halves at 1100°F, becomes 10% of what it was at 1200°F, and already begins losing strength at 400-600°F.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@ISpyTreason @SayGexxer @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra ~800-1500°F

Also, some totally unrelated information:

Steel’s structural integrity halves at 1100°F, becomes 10% of what it was at 1200-1500°F, and already begins losing strength at 400-600°F.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@bee_patriot @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra WTC7’s South Side.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@huberdude @Agus1Sunnely @MJTruthUltra It may be true that there was no plane that hit WTC7.

But WTC7 actually was damaged. It’s just that the south side of the building was the part that experienced the damage. And you would do everything to hide it, for it undermines your narrative.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@Captainornot @Dexerto Canavassing is when you rally a group of people to support your view. Off-site canvassing is when you pull people in from outside to do so. Picture it, if you will, as granting citizenship to a few hundred thousand people because they agreed to vote for you.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@NeverSayClever @randomrambling @glcarlstrom Actually, not having a state political party and not having a state breakfast time sound like great things to have.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@CodyGrace578 @911Revisionist Even if it doesn’t melt it, jet fuel still heats it up enough to cause the steel to weaken and bend!

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@greenNgold3aln @TheW6rstP3rv @nm1561754 @911Revisionist Correction, 707.

And they also failed to account for post-crash fires.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@jason_h4417 @911Revisionist Where’s the other side of the building?

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@PubSafetyHero @JohnMisiewicz1 @911Revisionist internal fire

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ But alas, I must rest.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ There is a slight problem- what if that aggressive PMC had simply gotten there after out-competing everyone else at first, such that no coalition of other PMCs could stop them?

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ I see. Well, to be clear, I was saying that the state itself could consider that attacking other states would not be worthwhile. Not all of them, mind you- fascism requires aggression, while democracy will lend itself to non-aggression more frequently due to war’s unpopularity.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Anyone can do this, really. Even a PMC can- once it gets nukes, it can tell its clients that if they leave, they get to taste the Sun for breakfast tomorrow.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Unfortunately, when an entity gains access to nukes, there are a few things it can do that it normally cannot. Such as preemptively nuking others trying to develop nuclear deterrents under the justification that they might nuke them. Or extorting them to not get nuked.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Nukes. True, PMCs can develop nukes, but so far, only states have developed nukes. And as it stands, a PMC without nukes will fall victim to a state that DOES have nukes, meaning that state can tell the PMC to do what it wants or risk getting everything it holds obliterated.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ 2a. Though there is the problem of fascism- a government where aggression is the point. Though that one shows that some actors can and will screw over economic rationality for the sake of glory.

[ultimatecub @ultimatecub0]

@SmushySnake @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ 2. “Surely, I am willing to take greater risks … if I can make others pay for
it”(10). It is simply too exhausting to engage in more provocation and aggression according to the NAP, is it not? What stops a state from agreeing to its principles on the international sphere?