7
3

[–] Yamau 7 points 3 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

0
7

[–] badruns 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Comparing jet fuel to an atomic bomb is somehow relevant?

0
13

[–] tury 0 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.

1
7

[–] BalfourYourFace 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Yea but jet fuel is just kerosene dude, it's not thermite placed at strategic weak points in the building.

0
0

[–] 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?

1
1

[–] Bushtaco321 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Offical version fishy? I would say its beyond fishy to the point Jonah and the whale biblical version fishy.

0
0

[–] Morbo ago 

Whales are mammals not fish. Just saying.

0
9

[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 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.

0
3

[–] 22839102? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Same with the Bali bombing, they had concrete vaporized so that you could see the rebar sticking out. At 40 yards from the 'car bomb'. Total nonsense, whatever hit that thing was way way way way stronger than a simple terrorist bomb.

0
5

[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 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.

0
0

[–] BentAxel ago 

Because I do not know. What would it take to make concrete break up like it did? I remember there were some HUGE ass girders in the base of the towers.

0
1

[–] Thats_not_my_dog 0 points 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.

0
1

[–] Lokester 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

A caveman could watch that implosion and know something wasn't right.

1
10

[–] 22838123? 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

The physics argument is going to rage forever, and keep us divided. Everyone needs to focus on the (((who))) and (((why))) instead.

0
5

[–] goat-ditarod 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

They let the who and the why go back to Israel.

0
1

[–] BentAxel 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

excellent point

0
6

[–] Merlynn 0 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.

0
2

[–] ScannerDarkly 0 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.

0
4

[–] ReAwakened 0 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.

0
0

[–] pimplepeter ago 

can someone recreate the event on small scale?

0
0

[–] captnemo ago 

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.

0
0

[–] pimplepeter ago 

seriously, can't believe it hasn't been done yet.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)