I made this comment to a post earlier today, but I thought it was worth its own post. I can't believe I had never looked this up before. Am I missing something? A jet engine is OPTIMIZED to burn jet fuel the most efficiently possible. Jet fuel burning in a building fire is NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TEMPERATURE! (and even that would not melt steel!) This discrepancy, if as simple as it appears to be, should have been broadcast loud and far long ago. Perhaps this simple fact, if indeed as simple as it seems to be, so clearly indicates the official 9/11 narrative absolutely can't be true, is the reason it seems to have been buried all these years. Please correct me if this is not as simple as it seems.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
OK
You would think the building would bend over instead of collapsing straight down.
Bend doesn't mean it turns into jello.
Have you never seen how metal becomes when a blacksmith is working it?
Have you never seen cherry red metal before?
Not that its all that relevant since Israel and Bush and crew demolished the towers, but still... Metal when heated gets pliable, but isn't fucking jello
Yes
I do welding with a little bit of blacksmithing techniques.
(I've actually had a coal fired forge)
I think we are agreeing ----- the failure is not consistent with a slow loss of steel strength --- if that temperature could have been achieved. One tower was starting to lean over ---- OK, that looks like soft steel ------ THEN, suddenly, everything below it started to crumble in free-fall. Those few seconds stuck out like a sore thumb.