Sorry- Random, possibly retarded questions..Why is there a debate about jet fuel? The temperature it burns at?-the temperature Steel weakens at? etc. It's not like jet fuel is Fueling the fire... (Conspiracy)

submitted ago by FuckUredditFuckuSpez

I know I'm mostly retarded, and I feel retarded for asking this... but Wasn't the jet fuel Ignited on impact... hence ya know... The massive explosion?

Let's just assume The entire narrative leading up to the Impact Is true. So two Boeing 757 and two Boeing 767 were used.

Forget about how the buildings collapsed. It was obviously controlled.

But why would anyone arguing against the narrative "Jet fuel weakened the steel" with anything other than-

"The explosion we saw... Was the fucking jet fuel. It's not like half of the fuel resulted in the explosion and the other half drained down the elevator shaft."

Please explain to me why I'm retarded for thinking there could be no jet fuel after the explosion... and anyone debating it's relevance after the explosion- Is NOT retarded.

Was the jet fuel Melting steel beams- Part of the psyop? Make everyone look retarded? People arguing it can't melt steel beams- As well as the people arguing it can? Like It's an irrelevant debate- Is it not?

Thank you to anyone who can answer this simple question with a simple answer...

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

EdSnowden ago

The only argument you need here is building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel.

White-Supremacist ago

This is the right answer. https://youtu.be/iEuJimaumW4?t=288 Short illustration of the idea.

Really though, nobody is going to listen about 9/11 being a false flag any more than las vegas shooting, humans are programmed through the media what to believe, the educational system obliterates their ability to use their imagination and question reality.