So Let Me Ask
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (147)
sorted by:
All solid points except the jet fuel statement. I have no doubt that the building or at least 1 of the buildings got taken down via controlled demo as well. However while jet fuel is not hot enough to “melt” steel it is hot enough to re-arrange the molecules enough to weaken the tensile strength of steel. Not to mention the amount of damage that was done to the steel already by the impact. I really wish people would stop bringing the jet fuel thing up because it takes away for all the other valid points.
Wrong!
One of the main reasons skyscrapers are made of steel is because they are NOT subject to catastrophic failure due to fire.
Steel is the best conductor of heat. It disperses the heat throughout the entire structure, making it unlikely the original area of the fire would be a point of failure.
Those fires were not hot enough to even WEAKEN steel to the point that the fires could bring down such a building.
This is WHY no such building has ever collapsed in the history of steel-frame buildings. On 9/11, those 3 buildings were brought down with explosives and/or incendiaries that were pre-installed.
Yeah, and nevermind the seemingly molten steel spewing out of the side of the building. Even if jet fuel weakened the beams, itd only drop some floors, slowed and turned to the side as it hits non heated beams. The entire damn buildings steel didn't heat up from the top up from jet fuel ffs lol
I think you mean top-down, but yeah.
Setting aside whether or not jet fuel actually could take down a building on its own, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is the line that is repeated over and over by people who want to paint all 9/11 investigation as crazy conspiracy theory. If you mention jet fuel, normies are instantly going to tune you out. If you want to actually get through to them, there are plenty of other convincing angles you can use without bringing up jet fuel.
All the black smoke means the steel would have never gotten hot enough to give way. Consider those buildings are designed to stay upright if they catch fire.
Yes, and they also found thermite, which can cut through and melt steel. But those have to be planted as devices inside the buildings. Jet fuel and office fires can never burn that hot. Building 7 had no jet fuel, only office fires -- i.e. paper and wood on fire, like in your fireplace (does your fireplace melt when you put wood and paper in it?).
There were teams of service people checking “fire safety equipment” throughout the towers days prior. Perfect opportunity to set up their demo
and prime reason why building fire gets hotter than fireplace is that smoke and heat can stack on top instead of disperse (but even then, not so hot it could liquidity even iron,let alone steel)