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 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...

Magonia

I’ve asked myself these same thing for years! If all the fuel was burned up in the initial impact and explosion how could there be enough left to “trickle down” (Hillary oughta love this question!) and cause the rest of the steel to melt?

It’s one or the other.

FuckUredditFuckuSpez

Well Please Get back to me if you ever get a straight Up answer from someone who knows what they're talking about... I knew I was wasting time writing this post- But I did it anyway. lol

Fuzzycrumpkin

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

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

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.

Sullysq

I think I get what you're asking, please confirm if I've gotten it.

Whenever fuel burns, explosion or not, it is only the atomized fuel that's burning. That is it's only the fuel that's either in vapor form or at least misted in the air. Pools of fuel burn much more slowly and depending on the depth of the pool in relation to it's exposed surface area it could burn for a very long time. You could literally throw a lit match into an open container of fuel and not have it vaporize in an explosion like you'd imagine from movies. if the container is starved of oxygen, like a gas can with a long spout to toss the match down, the match can even be doused out in the pool and never ignite the fuel. Point is that only the vapor, evaporating, or at least misted fuel burns so there could potentially be fuel burning in those buildings for a very long time.

FuckUredditFuckuSpez

Thank you! This is exactly what I was talking about... This answer is getting very close to helping me understand this...but again. I'm Retarded. So that Being said- Educating a retard On the science behind Fire and fuel Should not be how anyone spends their time... But It'd be much appreciated- But I understand If you've done all you can for me... lol.

So... When you say;

" you could literally throw a lit match into an open container of fuel and not have it vaporize in an explosion like you'd imagine from movies."

  • Isn't that irrelevant Information as well? At least given this circumstances of this situation?

I've never tried that with a match- but I have tried It with a lit cigarette back in the Nic Cage Con Air days. The good ol days... So I do understand this is what happens in that scenario - (Well I mean- I don't actually understand it- even after you explained it- But Not because you didn't explain it well But I know that is what happens..)

But how Could There be any Pools OF jet fuel In that building... wouldn't all of it be "Misted" upon Impact...?? I mean again-The plane disintegrated so how is fuel going to pool anywhere...

Fucking A... Nothing Like discussing a Real event-In a hypothetical manner...With a person who knows what they're talking about.. to A person who... Who... well- to another person.

Because My questions are all based on the notion that this is how it actually happened.. Obviously jet fuel had zero Impact on the collapse of the buildings...

But I'm simply questioning How it could even be hypothetically explained.

  • And I also don't understand what you mean when saying;

Fuel could burning in those buildings for a very long time?

Do you mean there could be fuel in the building for a very long time- BEFORE Burning...?

Or do you mean the fuel itself burns For a long time? Because once It does ignite... I'd have to imagine it burns up relatively quickly and It's now the material that was already in the building that continues to burn. Or are you saying if there were pools Of fuel- those pools of fuel could burn for a long time.

In an arson Fire- Gasoline is used as an accelerante- But Doesn't it burn Up relatively quickly? It's just that It accelerated the burning Of whatever else was already in the house?

Again- Thank you for trying to help me.

Sullysq

Right... So I'll start at the beginning of your latest questions. Also, to be clear, none of what I'm saying is meant to dispute or support the official story nor any alternative theories. Too many people get emotional about this shit and fail to grasp simple isolated concepts independent of other possible contributing factors.

Isn't that irrelevant Information as well? At least given this circumstances of this situation?

Yes, it's all relative information. But it's easiest to examine the components before assembling the related information. To reiterate, there's no explosion in the container scenario because there's no oxygen, or at least not enough. Even if there is an explosion there still remains spatters of liquid fuel. Liquid fuel doesn't burn, only its vapors burn.

But how Could There be any Pools OF jet fuel In that building... wouldn't all of it be "Misted" upon Impact...??

Not all of it. These jets had recently taken off for international flights and had hundreds of gallons in their tanks. Again, liquid fuel doesn't burn, only it's vapors.

Do you mean there could be fuel in the building for a very long time- BEFORE Burning...?

Not before. Because of the spillage of fuel from the destroyed plane, the fuel would burn for as long as its liquid form would take to evaporate and mix with available oxygen. More oxygen, faster burn. More fire and smoke means less oxygen, slower burn and lower holding capacity in the air for fuel to evaporate into it. This slows the evaporation, contributing to a slower burn off.

In an arson Fire- Gasoline is used as an accelerante- But Doesn't it burn Up relatively quickly? It's just that It accelerated the burning Of whatever else was already in the house?

Imagine a smaller scenario, lighter fluid on coals in a grill. The coals take a while to get hot enough to ignite. They can reach the necessary temperature because the lighter fluid is slowly evaporating and not just flashing into flames all at once. Here's the fun part... The lighter fluid burns at a lower temperature than the coals ignite at. The fluid is releasing stored energy quickly, that's evident as flames. The coals are then absorbing energy faster than they can dissipate it. When the energy absorbed in the coals reaches levels as high as the energy required for ignition that's the moment ignition of the coals occurs.

senpaithatignoresyou

It's not just the fuel, it is also the metal. Aviation grade aluminum creates it's own oxygen when it catches fire. The powder is also an ingredient in thermite.

This detail get suppressed on purpose. This along with evidence of Al Fuqura activity in new York during both world trade center bombings.

Gringojones

You should be at the top, considering you are the only one who read the entire question and responded with a valid answer.

Sullysq

Thanks. There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions just about everywhere anymore. Admittedly I do it too sometimes. Sometimes ya gotta cut through a lot of fat to get to the meat. It's not all bad though of course, knee-jerk can be plenty entertaining.

EdSnowden

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

FuckUredditFuckuSpez

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

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.

White-Supremacist

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.

burns29

You can't forget how the buildings collapsed, the collapse was not controlled. The damage exposed the steel and the jet fuel and plastic materials inside the building compromised the balloon framing of the building and the mass above the impact caused the implosion.

Damnpasswords

Because they believe that Jews wouldn't skimp on quality steel

Lag-wagon

What fucken year is it? It was a controlled demo and every knows it.

FuckUredditFuckuSpez

Ok man- That's not my question in the slightest.

I literally said " It was obviously a controlled Demolition.

Lag-wagon

It's not relevant.

red_red_wine

They should of made the beams with saudi passports.

pby1000

Pffffftttt... The black boxes, too.

Germ22

Jet fuel Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
So jet fuel wont melt the steel. but you do not need to melt steel for it to loose it's strength. Steel heated to a few hundred degrees significantly weakens the steel and makes it more pliable.

pby1000

The impact of the plane could have weakened the beams. However, the fall of the buildings looked very controlled. That is suspicious to me.

Samsquamch

Your second point is the only part I question as well - I don't see why truthers think the beams had to be turned into molten steel (melting point) before the weight they could support decreased.

But yeah, I would expect the top part of the building to fall in a different motion compared to the area below where the plane struck that still had full support.

dan_k

red herring