Folks, I'd like to make an appeal to be more critical of your own critical theories. This "jet fuel doesn't melt steel" meme has been amplified since the get go... and I'd place good money that was on purpose: to discredit reasonable inquiries into the official narrative. Everyone gets so hung up on the more fantastical theories of the HOW, that the "who" and the "why" are similarly treated with sloppy hole-ridden research, if the arguments ever even get to that.
It was never really controversial prior to this, that steel loses 50% of it weight bearing capacity long before its melting point, and loses 90% at temperatures created by normal office fires without any jet fuel or the impact of a plane hitting it.
If we do some relevant research and had the opportunity to speak with certain folks who would know, say for example old time New Yorkers with some knowledge of large building construction and who remember the original construction of the Twin Towers, I think that would force a revision of these kinds of memes.
The main one being that before the sheets went up on these towers, it was obvious that the girder system they used not only allowed for the buildings to go up and completed in such a short period of time (a modular "stacking oreo cookies" type build), but it also meant that the strength of the towers were wholly at their peripheries and NOT at the core center. THAT's why the 1993 bombing in the basement was a complete fail, because it attempted to compromise the core center instead of the periphery.
So yes plane impacts at just one or two floors of the periphery would be more than enough to get the girders structurally weak from the heat, and would give way to the weight of the upper floors. What we originally thought we saw on 9/11 is what we would expect to see in that regard.
Unfortunately, if I or others point out these kinds of incongruencies with the 9/11 truther narratives, we get labeled shills for the government coverup narrative. See how that works? Almost no rational arguments or thorough journalistic inquiries about 9/11 have been possible for 20 years. Instead we get only either the 9/11 Commission Report or "Loose Change", nukes + no plane theories etc. That imho is the real ongoing tragedy piled on top of the original tragedy.
Note: I personally have no opinion on whether explosives were also planted on site prior to the attacks. I am just highlighting the rationality that what folks thought they saw on the morning of 9/11 was what they did in fact see. There is no reason to push the very weak theory that something like a Deep State David Blane had coordinated pulling a fast one over the masses, using fake passenger planes or some other easy complicated claim that is pretty much non-falsifiable.
Folks, I'd like to make an appeal to be more critical of your own critical theories. This "jet fuel doesn't melt steel" meme has been amplified since the get go... and I'd place good money that was on purpose: to discredit reasonable inquiries into the official narrative. Everyone gets so hung up on the more fantastical theories of the HOW, that the "who" and the "why" are similarly treated with sloppy hole-ridden research, if the arguments ever even get to that.
It was never really controversial prior to this, that steel loses 50% of it weight bearing capacity long before its melting point, and loses 90% at temperatures created by normal office fires without any jet fuel or the impact of a plane hitting it.
https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork
If we do some relevant research and had the opportunity to speak with certain folks who would know, say for example old time New Yorkers with some knowledge of large building construction and who remember the original construction of the Twin Towers, I think that would force a revision of these kinds of memes.
The main one being that before the sheets went up on these towers, it was obvious that the girder system they used not only allowed for the buildings to go up and completed in such a short period of time (a modular "stacking oreo cookies" type build), but it also meant that the strength of the towers were wholly at their peripheries and NOT at the core center. THAT's why the 1993 bombing in the basement was a complete fail, because it attempted to compromise the core center instead of the periphery.
So yes plane impacts at just one or two floors of the periphery would be more than enough to get the girders structurally weak from the heat, and would give way to the weight of the upper floors. What we originally thought we saw on 9/11 is what we would expect to see in that regard.
Unfortunately, if I or others point out these kinds of incongruencies with the 9/11 truther narratives, we get labeled shills for the government coverup narrative. See how that works? Almost no rational arguments or thorough journalistic inquiries about 9/11 have been possible for 20 years. Instead we get only either the 9/11 Commission Report or "Loose Change", nukes + no plane theories etc. That imho is the real ongoing tragedy piled on top of the original tragedy.
Note: I personally have no opinion on whether explosives were also planted on site prior to the attacks. I am just highlighting the rationality that what folks thought they saw on the morning of 9/11 was what they did in fact see. There is no reason to push the very weak theory that something like a Deep State David Blane had coordinated pulling a fast one over the masses, using fake passenger planes or some other easy complicated claim that is pretty much non-falsifiable.
You can argue about jet fuel until you're blue in the face and it doesnt get anywhere.
Why were cell phones working on the flight?
Why doesnt the timeline match up for the hijacking?
Why is there no plane debris?
Wouldnt the planes bounce off the towers?
The jet fuel arguement is pretty dumb too, the fuel burned off when the planes hit. It's low temp office fires and black smoke.
As for the arguement itself, under ideal conditions how many gallons of jet fuel would you need to damage one steel beam?
You ever burn carpet? That's not a low-temp fire.