And is not above pushing manipulated footage when trying to garner support.
WTF!?
You need someone to “state” that jet fuel is an accelerant and would burn in such a way to facilitate a fire?
Who knew that jet fuel was combustible?
Former Strategic Air Command Crew Chief here.
Jet fuel is combustible.
So you’re saying members of the military would know? Lending further credibility to the idea that this was a conspiracy involving the US government. Because no civilian would ever think to use jet fuel as a pretense to bring down a couple of buildings. And yet it’s just plausible enough to serve as a cover story for the truth…
ETA: That’s a joke. I feel I have to be clear on that point because, standing beside some of the other things said in this thread, I realize there’s room for ambiguity.
Well I would never have thought that the fuel for an internal combustion engine was used for combustion. What else is the military keeping from us???
AHA! If they’d used a safer non-combustible jet fuel, we might not even be having this conversation.
It’s the old helium vs. hydrogen debate all over!
Yeah, this jet fuel argument is the equivalent of claiming a match can’t burn down a house. It’s like they never noticed that fire spreads.
Are gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and rocket fuel different in any significant way? While they are all combustible and dangerous, jet fuel may not burn efficiently without certain conditions such as pressure and proper vaporization. Jet fuel has a much lower volatility than gasoline. One could argue that much of the jet fuel never even burned but simply spilled away. Without some sort of containment, the fuel may have burned so quickly that could not do the damage that is claimed. That’s what I’m asking.
I don’t have that answer and posting a link to a Living Color video doesn’t help.
Beyond that, why was the fire so devastating? Doesn’t New York have fire inspectors that would mandate non flammable furnishings and limiting the amount flammable substances. It seems to me if the approved narrative is true, massive changes to the fire code are needed. Why haven’t they been changed?
Not only do they not have rules for humungous passenger jets flying into buildings, would you believe they have no regs concerning massive meteor strikes??
They were changed. Of course they were changed. Obviously they were changed.
The real question is, why on Earth would you think that they hadn’t been changed?
Just how much energy do you think it took to disintegrate a jet going 500+ mph? Are you saying that it wouldn’t be enough to ignite the fuel and everything else?
Here’s a test of a plane wreck that doesn’t even require full disintegration of the plane. See those huge flames?
Wait - “internal”?? No wonder spraying jet fuel on the outside of my engine wasn’t working. :smack:
Did you read your own cite?
None of the changes were would have mitigated the fires. Saved lives, yes. But I did not read anything about reducing flammables and fires themselves.
There are an awful lot of uses of the word may in that post. With certain circumstances/models it may have been possible for a plane to crash into the World trade center without bringing it down. But apparently those circumstances/models didn’t apply that day because the towers did in fact collapse. We’ve done the experiment, so we know the answer. Just think of it as a giant tragic episode of myth busters.
What if we made buildings out of the same material they use to make airplane black boxes?
For the simple reason that making a building that is impervious to jet liner crash is totally impractical. Aren’t you one of those people who are complaining that there are too many burdensome regulations?
HEY, WAIT! I’ve got a new complaint!