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 →
EdSnowden ago
The only argument you need here is building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel.
FuckUredditFuckuSpez ago
I understand you're making a comment... but I don't understand who it's directed at. It can't be directed at me- As that statement is not relevant to anything I asked.
Unless youre giving an example of answering a simple question (Or I guess I should say- A simple question asked in a not very simple manner) with irrelevant information. Subsequently confusing the already confusing situation.
And yes- I Know I'm the last person who should scold someone for making irrelevant confusing statements... bit ya know...Do As I say, Not as I do.
EdSnowden ago
Are you drunk? You don't need to argue whether or not jet fuel contributed or how, as building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and still came down just like the others.
It was the best answer to your question, which is why it's the top comment.