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:
But do you agree that such a fire would not result in such a controlled demolition collapse?
On the two towers, considering where the heat was at and seeing the bulge outward, no, I dont agree with that. They used Jets and hit that building in the most prime location to cause a cascade type event. Once the lower floors buckled and dropped the top sections, the kinetic energy would have done the rest. The architecture was designed to restrain a consistent vertical load. not a variable shock The structure was designed to absorb side loading from winds. I am not debating with anyone regarding the reason why they were destroyed. We are all pretty much on the same page I believe. In my mind they did use jets because its the best plausible deniability and it points all of us at an external enemy all while the real enemy was reading books to kids in FL. Engineers can debate this till their blue in the face but cannot deny that 20k gal of Jet-A at that height with the wind blowing through it is going to burn at high enough temps for mild steel to lose it ability to hold the loads it was designed for. Thats is just applied physics folks. They very well could of and most likely had some backup plans but that doesnt change the physics.
MOST of that plane fuel was gone during the huge fireball at the moment of impact.
The architecture was designed to restrain several times the weight of what's above.
No steel-framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire, despite burning HOTTER and LONGER than those on 9/11.
No amount of fuel can weaken 100,000 tons of steel, that's just laughable.
There was never any reason for the lower floors to buckle, besides the planted explosives.
Explosives are also undoubtedly what pulverized the concrete, otherwise large slabs would have made most of the rubble.
Not to mention the distinct possibility of burning aluminum vapor coming off the molten aluminum of the airplane fuselage. Much hotter than burning kerosene.