[–] goat-ditarod 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
They let the who and the why go back to Israel.
[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago (edited ago)
I managed a concrete testing lab and several concrete plants for 12 years. As soon as I saw the towers collapse into dust I knew it was bullshit. Steel reinforced concrete does not pulverize into dust. Even if the "Pancake" theory was true the building would not have exploded and blow out. It would have stacked, like pancakes and either stopped or toppled over one of the sides.
Break, collapse, fall, lean, crumple, buckle, and crack but it sure as hell does not pulverize into powder.
Little known fact: As long as moisture is present concrete will always gain strength. Moisture in the inside and outside of the building, condensation, etc. The concrete in those buildings was stronger in 2001 than when they were built in the Seventies.
And then there is always building 7.
[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
That reminds me of The OK city Bombing.
They said it was a truck bomb made from Nitrates while they were pulling unexploded bombs from inside the building and actually reporting the bombs being removed live on TV. People still believed the truck bomb bullshit.
[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The entire building was made of huge ass girders. All the concrete was steel reinforced meaning there are webs of steel bars inside the concrete, it helps the concrete hold together when stressed.
I have no idea what would make concrete pulverize into dust, but it isn't from falling.
[–] Merlynn 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
The jet fuel argument is a fake argument propagated by the jewish media,from the mouths of their puppets,to discredit the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Any jet fuel on that plane went up in the explosion and wouldn't be a factor in any further damage. It's not unlike how "fire breathers" spit fuel over a flame and it burns the fuel up before it can hit the ground.
Jet fuel is a red herring.
[–] ReAwakened 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
A flash kerosene fire is not going to create enough heat to damage a giant steel heat sink. Especially, when the fuel travels through the building to ignite outside. That story was stupid the first time it was told, and it's still stupid.
[–] Bushtaco321 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Offical version fishy? I would say its beyond fishy to the point Jonah and the whale biblical version fishy.
[–] ScannerDarkly 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Basic Physics lesson -
For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
A smaller upper portion of building cannot physically crush a larger, stronger portion. The top portion is not immune to the crushing force. It is irrelevant that one portion is moving in the direction of gravity. The force is still applied equally.
It’s physically impossible for the main stream explanation to have happened.
[–] pimplepeter ago
can someone recreate the event on small scale?
I like that idea wouldn’t be that hard to use same materials (concrete/steel) and structure at model size? I would do it for fun but I don’t have any physical engineering experience. Good Uni project design a wtc to withstand multiple airliner strikes :) I’m sure it was just we want to rebuild wtc let’s demo it and turn it into a real live movie.
[–] Yamau 7 points 3 points 10 points (+10|-7) ago
Not saying that a dont find the official version fishy at all but this argument is faulty af - the fucking volume of the thing is completely irrelevant.
Pretty sure that a ratio between a modern atomic bomb and a city is considerably worse for example
[–] tury 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
Although I get your point, there is some sort of relevance (although not shown in graphic).
If this small amount of jet fuel were as potent as described - why would the USA military use ANYTHING OTHER than jet fuel for it's bombing runs? The amount of damage caused by so called jet-fuel would outperform the most expensive missiles and bombs that the world has ever produced (with a couple of extremely expensive and potent exceptions).
If the jet-fuel is THAT efficient, to destroy so many buildings - even ones not touched by the jet fuel - this would save billions of dollars for the military in the span of a single year.
The point is that - obviously - the jet fuel is a lie.
[–] BalfourYourFace 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago
Yea but jet fuel is just kerosene dude, it's not thermite placed at strategic weak points in the building.
[–] badruns 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
Comparing jet fuel to an atomic bomb is somehow relevant?
[–] biggdiccbenny ago
So that amount or even twice spreads across the impacted floors and maybe 10 below, somehow. How does that make the whole building fall?