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:
The only analysis I have seen involved the presence of an internal fire that pre-gutted the building (initial internal collapse) and loosened up the beam-column connections, so the whole thing unzipped once it got started.
There is a basis for thinking a nearby seismic shock could have gotten the ball rolling. I saw a recent video clip from either Syria or Gaza that happened to capture the moments when a bomb or missile hit the footing of a multi-story building, and the shock caused the building to have a pancake collapse.
Can there be a better explanation? Possibly. Probably. But, unlike a paranoid person, I am used to seeing accidents in the world that have slender or no explanations. Just because we live in the world doesn't mean we know everything. Or that we ever will know everything.