3 ms·
Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspi
by jl6 5y ago
Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspiracy machinery that controlled demolition implies.
The jet fuel would have burned for ten minutes and then been exhausted. The consequent fire it started is what burned for hours.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoI don't know if ground zero at WTC7 burned for months, but ground zero below the twin towers definitely did. The claim being hours vs the claim being months is obviously significant.
- rurban 5y agoIt isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago> It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense It really isn't clear what this means / You're saying this relates to a nuclear weapon somehow?
- rurban 5y agoA simple nuclear destruction device, demanded by the city construction policies. As in Chicago with the Sears Tower. Architects could tell you lots of stuff