When you rip electrical wires apart they spark, and lights blow up
~~~
I immediately recognized it as electrical. I would put money on it. I wouldn’t bet the farm, but I’m quite confident.
There are a lot of people out there who just don’t know how things work. You can blame public education, you can blame television and tiktok culture and the idiocracy acceleration, but there are also people who think they are clever and have no idea how much they really aren’t.
When September 11th happened, before the towers went down, I was watching it all on television with a group of people. I made the statement, “If they don’t put those fires out, those buildings will collapse due to structural failure”.
Not everyone learns construction technology, so I give allowances, but it is code to coat I-beams and steel columns with fire retardant material because they will get soft and give way in fires. The WTC building should have had this too, but prolonged jet-fuel fed fires are too hot to allow to burn.
I find conspiracy theories entertaining, but the best ones are ones that cannot be refuted. This stuff is just stupid.
It looked to me like at least a couple of the “explosions” were the big bridge lights shattering.
I still have questions about the jet fuel bringing down the towers. In short, yes, the jet fuel burns hot enough to potentially burn the steel in the towers ... but. When the jet hit the towers that fuel was instantly atomized (sprayed). In that state it would be consumed extremely quickly. Once it was gone all you had was what the jet fuel set on fire ... i.e, the burning innards of the building, and even with a lot of plastics ... you might get a temperature in the high 500’s Fahrenheit. Steel melts around 2500 Fahrenheit. I just have a hard time believing that there was an adequate “puddle” of jet fuel big enough to burn long enough in just the right place to melt enough steel to bring the building down ... let alone the buildings that were not directly hit. Keep in mind that just because jet fuel is wet, it is not like Napalm that sticks to one spot and keeps burning. If it still liquid, then it still flows, and with more flow, it becomes more dispersed to be consumed faster.
Generally speaking, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I try to distinguish between possible and plausible.
So ... yes, I can see the jet fuel starting the fire, and yes, the building burned a long time, but I really don’t think the jet fuel lasted long enough to actually do what they said it did. There was a lot of steel, and for a building that size it had to be pretty high quality. It also would have needed to be treated just for code. The math does not add up.
I want to believe it was just the planes that brought them down ... but I would not bet my life on it.