Another angle:
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
432 points (98.6% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !historyphotos@piefed.social
7672 readers
1 users here now
COMM MOVED TO !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don’t build em like they used to.
either that or they don't make jet fuel like they used to
in before "um, actually, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft and therefore obviously did not use jet fuel"
I mean that and a b25 weighs like 40k lbs and a 767 weighs like 400k lbs, and flies twice as fast.
Very very different crashes.
The planes that hit the twin towers were bigger, going faster, and had more fuel.
The twin towers themselves were also built with a different skyscraper design at well that used fewer steel beams. I don't remember what the names of the skyscraper design types were but I remember a 9-11 history channel program going into it.
I may be wrong but I recall the twin towers had a central spine that was the load bearing component like a tree or something. Older buildings had a frame and load bearing exterior with a soft, gooey center.
I remember it being explained as the twin towers "hung" somehow, so the central spine makes sense.
The older buildings were basically just steel beams like you see in cartoons. Lots and lots and lots of steel basically in cubes from what I recall. So there was just a lot more to catch the load. In some sense they were overbuilt.
Jet fuel can't melt steel memes.
But chememetrails can!
I heard they made hypnotoad gay!
but the resulting fire can absolutely diminish their load capacity, making them frail and pliable like boiled spaghetti
Mom's spaghetti?
Perhaps counter-intuitively, if your pockets are full of Mom's spaghetti, you're more likely to be structurally sound.
Either that, or Bush did 9/11
Maybe a B-25 killed WTC 7