Muh Jet Fuel ~ Ryan Dawson

submitted by JasonCarswell from (youtube.com)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'm still not buying it. Architects would account for that. Further, the numbers are not good according to this list: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

[–]hennaojisan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Not buying it. And WTC7 fell because it was a warm day, right?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Let's say Ryan is correct. Wouldn't all the architecture codes and laws have to be updated to have better fool-proof designs against problems with anti-fire measures, ventilation, fireproof building materials, not to mention structural integrity should internal fires happen without sprinklers?

Why was the WTC architect whacked soon after denying it could have possibly fallen like that?

There's waaaaaaaay too many loose ends or rumours that he never goes over, just angrily saying we're all idiots for not buying this part of the official story.

[–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not to mention that exactly zero steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed into their footprints, except on that one day in New York. Have you ever looked at the site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Now it is expanded to include pilots, etc. They don't believe the steel beams melted and have been calling for an independent investigation for many years. My a-ha moment came in 2002 or 2003 when I stumbled on a website for architects with an article that started with words to the effect: we all know the official story cannot possibly be true.

I didn't know about the architect being whacked but do know that the buildings were designed to sustain being hit by two 747s, the biggest plane made at the time of the design. Even Trump said just a few days ago that explosives must have been used.

There are so many other points that could be made. He got a lot of views but the video just doesn't make sense.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's so cocky and certain that it's very off-putting to truthers who like to keep an open mind and change it as the evidence presents itself. He poo-poos all the nano-thermite stuff yet there's an abundance of undeniable connections within the WTC and surrounding the whole criminal cabal, including who owns the patents, the research, the secret military manufacture, the contracts, etc etc etc. If it is a false lead it's the best damn rabbit hole I've ever seen.

Yes, energy beams and holograms seem stupid.

As a professional animator I can guarantee with a small professional team, proper prep time and the necessary connection all the planes could have been faked, live, for 30fps 720486 broadcast television and then added to all the tapes. 100% doable. Do I think they did? 99% not.

There were even reports of a rocket launcher from another rooftop. Sounds like misinformation bunk to me.

Energy weapons? More bunk. However there are powerful ray the military has, for lethal use and crowd control. Maybe they've got worse. Maybe there's a frequency that can activate the nanothermite? Maybe I just made it up. The metal ruins prove shape charges were used to "walk" the building.

If they can put explosives in the WTC they can put them int the Pentagon too. Barbara Honegger explores this very well.

Ryan does great research but sets his own limitations. His shitty quality with quantity over quality and bad attitude are his greatest setbacks.

[–]CompleteDoubterII 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Didn't the Plasco building in the Tehran fire collapse into its own footprint? https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the second vid you can see a "crimp" at the top of the building just before it starts to fall. According to Architects & Engineers, that is the tell-tale sign of destruction by explosives (controlled demolition). Perhaps the same group was involved in 911 and this explosion. Who had opportunity and motive?

[–]CompleteDoubterII 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The circumstances of 9/11 were pretty extraordinary. It seems like updating the codes in order to account for being hit by a plane would be rather odd.

Look, I'm kind of new to the 9/11 truth movement; there's definitely some nonsense with the official story (the declassified Dancing Israelis were my red pill), but I've been looking at both sides and it seems to be debunked. I'll throw you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php, https://www.metabunk.org/, https://www.911myths.com. I think you know where to get the truther side of the story.