45
Comments (47)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Calculation of the energy required to destroy the towers shows that the jet fuel, and burning paper etc., did not have the energy required to disintegrate the concrete as well as melt all the steel. The pools of molten steel found underground after the collapse implied that their melt was at twice the melting point of steel. Jet fuel and burning file cabinets alone cannot do that - it takes a more powerful energy source. Pretty much only a nuke could furnish that energy.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

These are strawman arguments. Forgive me if I am wrong, but nobody here is proposing that the materials you keep referencing (jet fuel, burning paper, etc.) are what brought the towers down.

EDIT: The following quotation of u/DZP is badly out of context. I apologize. I misread it as only a nuke could furnish the energy to bring down superstructures like the Twin Towers when in fact the point was the vast amount of heat produced. My response to that is the research that has been done on use of thermite and how much, but I am not knowledgeable about that.

...it takes a more powerful energy source. Pretty much only a nuke could furnish that energy.

You don't believe that buildings can be pulled using non-nuclear means?