Correct.
I heard figures closer to 30% of the building height should be left standing if it had indeed collapsed the way the official narrative said. But anyway you look at it, it is not 2%!!
Oh and before any one says the planes were full of fuel and this burnt and softened the steel, you're wrong.
Aviation fuel can burn no where near hot enough to melt of even weaken steel.
And no, the airliners would have only been fuelled for the flight they were making, a diversion in case of bad weather to a predetermined airport, and a minimum amount required on landing. When I worked out rough figures, the aircraft hitting the WTC would have had around 1/3rd (possibly slightly more) of max fuel load.
Correct. I heard figures closer to 30% of the building height should be left standing if it had indeed collapsed the way the official narrative said. But anyway you look at it, it is not 2%!!
Oh and before any one says the planes were full of fuel and this burnt and softened the steel, you're wrong.
Aviation fuel can burn no where near hot enough to melt of even weaken steel.
And no, the airliners would have only been fuelled for the flight they were making, a diversion in case of bad weather to a predetermined airport, and a minimum amount required on landing. When I worked out rough figures, the aircraft hitting the WTC would have had around 1/3rd (possibly slightly more) of max fuel load.