I love how jet fuel and steel beams is under science-denier...how tf is that not directly opposite?? I’M the one DENYING science by pointing out steel needs more than twice the BOILING point of kerosene to melt?!? Or that that same kerosene can only burn off ONCE, not repeatedly and with unlimited energy...absolute clown world
The specific fact that makes “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” fall flat as an indicator of demolition is that structural steel loses over 80% of its strength at the temperature jet fuel burns at. What skyscraper would still stay standing at 20% strength?
“Loses structural integrity” is not “vaporizes into nothing”. Those building met ZERO resistance on the way down. Weakening beams would bend, twist, sway, etc.; they would cause the top to tilt and fall off unevenly NOT FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS!!! Top part falling into bottom part because of weakened section does NOT look like that. Now with a straight face tell me that all the jet fuel ‘ran down the elevator shafts’ and weakened the whole structure before burning off (AFTER using enough energy to vaporize ALL traces of those planes instantly) and that it did so EVENLY in BOTH towers (not too even mention #7). GTFOHWTN
It didn't do so evenly; the top sections tilted then crushed the floors beneath. How much momentum does a hundred thousand tons have once it starts moving? How much resistance would the lower floors offer to that momentum? How fast would it fall if it were truly freefall? Can you answer those questions? If not, what basis do you have?
They didn’t tilt for shit my guy, they went into their own footprints! You can literally watch it with a stopwatch, it falls in just under 10secs, that’s about as close to gravity as you can get (9.8m/s/s). THINK about it, there would be SOME resistance, theres no way they would go STRAIGHT DOWN. you can watch pancake collapses until you’re blue in the face and not ONE will look they did. First and only times in history (plenty of worse-made buildings have burned far hotter, and for far longer, without anything remotely close to wtc happening and it happens THREE times in one day (with 2 planes). Bc before I answer anything else, I want to hear you spit back the narrative for building 7; what about that one genius?? And you can go to AE911truth and check the U.of Alaska@Fairbanks’ engineering and math and see them test the fire weakened theory on 7 then ask yourself how long it would take to rig? Why would they rig it? Did they just get lucky and decide to pull it early in all the confusion? Who does that help? Coincidences?
I love how jet fuel and steel beams is under science-denier...how tf is that not directly opposite?? I’M the one DENYING science by pointing out steel needs more than twice the BOILING point of kerosene to melt?!? Or that that same kerosene can only burn off ONCE, not repeatedly and with unlimited energy...absolute clown world
The specific fact that makes “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” fall flat as an indicator of demolition is that structural steel loses over 80% of its strength at the temperature jet fuel burns at. What skyscraper would still stay standing at 20% strength?
“Loses structural integrity” is not “vaporizes into nothing”. Those building met ZERO resistance on the way down. Weakening beams would bend, twist, sway, etc.; they would cause the top to tilt and fall off unevenly NOT FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS!!! Top part falling into bottom part because of weakened section does NOT look like that. Now with a straight face tell me that all the jet fuel ‘ran down the elevator shafts’ and weakened the whole structure before burning off (AFTER using enough energy to vaporize ALL traces of those planes instantly) and that it did so EVENLY in BOTH towers (not too even mention #7). GTFOHWTN
It didn't do so evenly; the top sections tilted then crushed the floors beneath. How much momentum does a hundred thousand tons have once it starts moving? How much resistance would the lower floors offer to that momentum? How fast would it fall if it were truly freefall? Can you answer those questions? If not, what basis do you have?
They didn’t tilt for shit my guy, they went into their own footprints! You can literally watch it with a stopwatch, it falls in just under 10secs, that’s about as close to gravity as you can get (9.8m/s/s). THINK about it, there would be SOME resistance, theres no way they would go STRAIGHT DOWN. you can watch pancake collapses until you’re blue in the face and not ONE will look they did. First and only times in history (plenty of worse-made buildings have burned far hotter, and for far longer, without anything remotely close to wtc happening and it happens THREE times in one day (with 2 planes). Bc before I answer anything else, I want to hear you spit back the narrative for building 7; what about that one genius?? And you can go to AE911truth and check the U.of Alaska@Fairbanks’ engineering and math and see them test the fire weakened theory on 7 then ask yourself how long it would take to rig? Why would they rig it? Did they just get lucky and decide to pull it early in all the confusion? Who does that help? Coincidences?