You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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
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
7

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

Comparing jet fuel to an atomic bomb is somehow relevant?

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?