One point: people can campaign with whatever issues they feel comfortable with. Perhaps we should rename this a "presentation of 9/11 evidence campaign" or a "YOU decide the truth campaign" not US. Might save a lot of arguments...
Have fun, gentle people.... _________________ Andrew
I'd be interested to see how the fireball from the petrol bomb or bomber would react if it wasn't splashing off a solid surface, but rather allowed to continue moving in the same direction as its carrier. Perhaps through some kind of grid structure?
I wonder why they don't test that? It would certainly make a more convincing comparison.
Any thoughts Andrew? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
1) The plane hit off-centre, thus penetrating the opposite wall.
2) The fuel does not all ignite at the instant of impact (why should it?) but immediately after and the path of least resistance for the fireball is through the (now holed) wall.
3) Most of the fuel is carried in the wings, so it's hardly surprising that a large fireball explodes to the side of the main body of the plane. Presumably the remainder of the fuel burnt within the building. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
1) The plane hit off-centre, thus penetrating the opposite wall.
and preventing the fuel from igniting? How so, dear sir (or madam)?
EmptyBee wrote:
2) The fuel does not all ignite at the instant of impact (why should it?)
Because metal scraping against metal sparks and the fuel tank ruptures when it hits a hard object - as illustrated in
a) the B52 crash
b) the petrol bomb ignition.
and also it's just "what fuel does"
Quote:
but immediately after and the path of least resistance for the fireball is through the (now holed) wall.
So, are you suggesting that even though the side wall wasn't impacted and there is no hole in it, it's easier for the fuel to explode out of that one rather than the "hole" where the plane went in? OK - I am sorry for my nonsenical reasoning in the video then. You win - "wings down".
Quote:
3) Most of the fuel is carried in the wings, so it's hardly surprising that a large fireball explodes to the side of the main body of the plane. Presumably the remainder of the fuel burnt within the building.
This again doesn't really make sense. The wing impacts the front of the building. The fuel should ignite there - or are you proposing the "amazing vacuum" explanation then. A bit like the amazing "fireball down the lift shaft" mantra of OGCT supporters....
1 hr 49 minutes - not a bad response time. Seems like these anonymous types feel a rapid response is necessary. A bit like an "emergency task force" - tsk, there I go again... _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
35 minutes fallious - a bit slow off the mark weren't you, old boy!
I raised a perfectly valid point that you don't have the guts to consider. As usual, you post a controversial topic in the controversial section then disregard anyone who questions it.
This quote from a different thread, recently made by Micpsi comes to mind:
Quote:
I never thought I would seen the day when mindless fundamentalism incapable of offering rational arguments appeared amongst 9/11 truth seekers. When everyone thinks they know the truth, all dialogue ceases.
_________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
I'd be interested to see how the fireball from the petrol bomb or bomber would react if it wasn't splashing off a solid surface, but rather allowed to continue moving in the same direction as its carrier. Perhaps through some kind of grid structure?
I wonder why they don't test that? It would certainly make a more convincing comparison.
Any thoughts Andrew?
Who's "they"? This is a video I edited together! You go and make a petrol bomb and throw it against a metal grid if you're that curious.
This is not a very useful comparison. Whatever the surface impacted, there will be some ignition. The video shows none at the WTC impact in at least the 1st 8 frames. Also there is the B52 crash. You argue about details which do not really change the basic nature of fuel + air + spark. As I have repeated over and over (even when one poster argued that the plane impact was like the situation inside a car cyclinder - ie a spark plug was needed to ignite the fuel mixture - which um - would've come from metal scraping metal at high speed! )
So there's your answer, now wake up - become a whistle blower and let us know why you are still here Fally Pally. Or do you want your world to be run by unelected eople with advanced technology to screw everyone else up? It seems to be an easier choice for me to make than some people who post here. Wake up. _________________ Andrew
1) The plane hit off-centre, thus penetrating the opposite wall.
and preventing the fuel from igniting? How so, dear sir (or madam)?
Jet fuel can not expode when starved of oxygen, in an oxygen starved environment, the jet fuel could only burn as long as long as the oxygen is present. Ergo, the vast majority of fuel did not ignite till it was outside the opposite side of the building, with room to vaporise and breathe.
You have understood that the interior of the towers represented an oxygen staved environment even for the small quantities of fuel left behind from the crash, which continued to slowly burn before the towers came down.
EmptyBee wrote:
Quote:
2) The fuel does not all ignite at the instant of impact (why should it?)
Because metal scraping against metal sparks and the fuel tank ruptures when it hits a hard object - as illustrated in
a) the B52 crash
b) the petrol bomb ignition.
and also it's just "what fuel does"
Another answer based on your flawed understanding of the jet fuels requirements to explode. See previous point. Fire is a reaction, particularily involving oxygen, no oxygen = no fire. Simple as that.
Quote:
Quote:
but immediately after and the path of least resistance for the fireball is through the (now holed) wall.
So, are you suggesting that even though the side wall wasn't impacted and there is no hole in it, it's easier for the fuel to explode out of that one rather than the "hole" where the plane went in? OK - I am sorry for my nonsenical reasoning in the video then. You win - "wings down".
You mean, you don't expect 10,000 gallons (~30 tonnes) of liquid traveling at 500 MPH capable of punching a hole in the WTC wall? Lets be clear, it's not going to reverse direction and come out the same side it came in.
Quote:
Quote:
3) Most of the fuel is carried in the wings, so it's hardly surprising that a large fireball explodes to the side of the main body of the plane. Presumably the remainder of the fuel burnt within the building.
This again doesn't really make sense. The wing impacts the front of the building. The fuel should ignite there - or are you proposing the "amazing vacuum" explanation then. A bit like the amazing "fireball down the lift shaft" mantra of OGCT supporters....
Not sure I understand your reasoning here. The jet fuel is whats 'exploding' it's also traveling at 500MPH into the building why would you expect to see it explode on the same side it goes in?
Quote:
1 hr 49 minutes - not a bad response time. Seems like these anonymous types feel a rapid response is necessary. A bit like an "emergency task force" - tsk, there I go again...
Yes, there you go again. Digging that hole deeper and deeper, are you not capable of a debate without personal insults? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Last edited by Fallious on Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:15 pm; edited 2 times in total
I'm sorry Andrew I don't find your argument at all convincing. There's no reason to believe the jet fuel all had to all ignite/explode at the instant of impact rather than taking a few split seconds to go up (by which time it was inside the building due to the fact that the plane was travelling at several hundred mph). Even though kerosene is highly flammable it still has to be exposed to oxygen to combust does it not?
Also, as I pointed out, the plane struck off-centre so the debris/fireball puncturing the side of the building is hardly surprising.
I'm also struggling to imagine any coherent alternative explanation to the obvious one. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Who's "they"? This is a video I edited together! You go and make a petrol bomb and throw it against a metal grid if you're that curious.
Ah congratulations on the video then. I wouldn't know how to make a petrol bomb if I tried, unfortunately.
Quote:
This is not a very useful comparison. Whatever the surface impacted, there will be some ignition.
Fair enough, but surely you understand that a flat surface which halts the fuels momentum is basically no comparision whatsoever?
Quote:
The video shows none at the WTC impact in at least the 1st 8 frames.
Please demonstrate that we should expect anything different. Otherwise I fail to see why this is an issue, and particularily why it leads you to assume no plane was used.
Quote:
Also there is the B52 crash. You argue about details which do not really change the basic nature of fuel + air + spark. As I have repeated over and over
Strange, how can you apply those rules to the B52 crash and not the Planes entering the towers? Lets try this: Do you admit that the later fires inside of the towers were starved of oxygen?
Quote:
(even when one poster argued that the plane impact was like the situation inside a car cyclinder - ie a spark plug was needed to ignite the fuel mixture - which um - would've come from metal scraping metal at high speed! )
Yes, quite right, they were talking tripe. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject:
Isn't it reasonable the fireball to the side is bigger than the blowback? After all, the fuel itself is in motion at the same speed as the plane, so the fireball itself should be moving forward.
That said I do think the plane "melts" into the building but without decent quality encoding on the video, it could be down to artefacts etc. couldn't it?
Why is it that one NPT spammer gets their posts edited and another doesn't?
Anything to do with one's moderator status?
And I accuse you of spamming, Andrew, because you have posted this stuff before. I remember because I answered your points and you made yourself absent from the forum for a couple of weeks 'marking'.
As far as I can see, there is nothing suspiscious about this fireball apart from the prestidigitous way you keep trying to draw attention to it.
Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't mean that I have to. If you were really interested in finding answers, rather than propping up this tired and vacuous whimsy perhaps you could make better use of your time.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
