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...
view the rest of the comments →
Fuzzycrumpkin ago
Why would all the fuel be gone? Not all of it would be ignited in an explosion, the jet fuel for airplanes should be similar to the fuel for cars, and that fuel isn't what makes an explosion. The vapor from the fuel causes an explosion and then the gasoline burns. At most you would get the fuel thrown everywhere from the explosion.
FuckUredditFuckuSpez ago
Thank you for answering what I was asking.
That being said-That's the part I'm saying I Don't get. So still based on your answer- I disagree with you... I am Not saying you're wrong- But I'm saying How can that be possibly?
Obviously am not qualified to explain why I disagree with you- Hence my initial question. lol
But your answer just doesn't make sense to me. Now- I know even less about jet fuel- than I do regular Fuel... But lets just assume It's basically the same...I.e The vapors are what's explosive... But the fuel Itself is still flammable.
So how does Some of the fuel result In the explosion- And The rest of the fuel Escapes the explosion without even Igniting (And I mean Catching FIre-Not saying exploding)
I know very little about Skyscrappers- Planes- or fuel... But my ignorant ass can not comprehend how fuel Escapes an explosion and subsequent fire..
Like does that happen? Is there an example of that happening or a clear explanation of how this could be possible? And I guess that explanation would have to account for the relevant variables in this situation... I have to assume an explosion in the middle of an open field- would increased the likely hood of fuel escaping unscathed- Versus In a confined space.
I mean Wouldn't it have to be in two separate Gas tanks... One of which- Remained completely intact (even though the entire plane basically disinterested AGAIN- I'm speaking to the scenario we are given- And the explanations used to rebut that scenario)
Shielding the fuel Inside from the explosion like that as well as escape the subsequent fire caused by the first fuel tank.
Then after surviving all of that- It rolls over to the elevator where it then Breaks open and drains down the shaft.
How does Fuel Escape an explosion that- without contributing to the explosion-or being subsequently burned up in the aftermath of said explosion.
Jesus fucking Christ- Finally Articulated my question....5000 words later.Nvm- I managed to confuse it again.
Fuzzycrumpkin ago
If you think about how a Molotov works that is a close representation of what would most likely to occur. You get an initial flare up from the fumes catching fire, and then the subsequent fuel burning. The plane would also acted like the Molotov by dumping it fuel everywhere when the container burst on impact.
The reason you would still have fuel is because the fuel isn't explosive. If anything the fuel would have a dissipating effect of the flames, much like if you doused it in water. From what I have read, the fuel used for planes is similar to that of diesel, and that is hard to catch fire. I've been told that you can pour diesel on a fire and actual put it out. You can light diesel on fire but it requires a high amount of heat to do so. And then when you get it lit it generally burns hotter longer than a thinner flammable.
If you would like to do an experiment, try lighting motor oil on fire. I would wager that it would be rather hard to do so.
The only thing I am surprised at is the size of explosion that those planes produced.