9/11 truth isn’t gonna go away until it is revealed …
That’s some neatly cut steel you got there … 🧐
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
I don't buy into the official narrative of the plane, that is for sure.
The last I saw, the theory is that most of the plane's body stayed inside the tower after impact. Reason: the tower was not solid, and simply shredded the plane as it entered - like a cheese grater.
The plane body, being made of aluminum, provided a source of fuel for the fires. Aluminum has a much lower melting point than steel - and the molten metal we see spewing out of the building was the molten aluminum. These fires weakened (didn't melt) the steel of the building, and caused its collapse.
Here are the problems with that scenario:
On impact, it is safe to assume that most of the jet fuel was consumed. Yes, it caused fires in the building - but did so across multiple floors. Some big, some small. It wasn't one raging, monster, isolated fire. More on this at #6
It is difficult to envision most of the plane remaining intact after hitting a steel frame building at 500 MPH. The building was only ~ 1 acre wide and we saw major pieces of the plane get ejected from the building. To be fair, let's assume 50% of the plane was vaporized on impact - leaving 50% in the building.
Now the question is - can ordinary fires of office furniture heat aluminum to the point where it melts? Maybe. But what are the chances that the fires met the shredded aluminum with such regularity that it melted? I'd venture close to zero.
Even if aluminum was melting - it does so at 1200F. That does not explain the melting of the steel beams and trusses (which melt at 2500F).
Metal is resilient. When heated, it will dissipate the heat to the coldest ends of the metal. It takes a great deal of heat and time to melt metal in an uncontrolled environment. The steel in the WTC melted in 90 minutes.
If you listen to the radio calls from firefighters in the building, they clearly say "We have isolated pockets of fire that we can knock down. Send up X guys with a line." Does that sound like a raging fire that was hitting 2500F? No. To be fair, let's assume most of the fires couldn't be put out with a small crew. But their observation tells us that a systemic weakening of the metal occurring on multiple floors just wasn't happening the way we've been led to believe. Small fires do not weaken steel.
But let's assume everything in the official narrative is correct. You have two buildings hit in two completely different angles. That means the fires were different. The structure damage was different. The weight distribution was different. How could it be that both buildings failed - and fell - in the exact same way? And while we're at it - how could it be that WTC 7 failed and fell in the same way as WTC 1 & 2?
You brought up a good point. Building 7 which was not hit fell the same way. Like a demolition. With my eyes watching "the video" the entire plane penetrated from the nose to the wing tips an outer steel reinforced building with nothing visual falling off the plane. That's what I see from my perspective. If you take away the existence of CGI or blue beam your rationale makes sense.
Maybe when this mission is over the Patriots will tell us the who, the why and the how. Along with so many other deceptions the world needs to know.
Personally I want vindication for all the people I red pilled that thought I was a nutty conspiracy theorist.
The more truth that comes into my life the greater the burden. Thankfully there are people out there that are wide awake and like a sponge looking to soak up truth.
Did some work for a nice couple yesterday that I need to email them some Intel. The guy took all his cash out of the bank and converted it to gold and silver and made his wife/girlfriend do the same.
My feeling is if they steal everyone's cash we are all screwed anyways.