| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| eogz wrote: | That pressure wave as the building fell, certainly looked like a squib to me.
I'm not an engineer in any sense of the word.
However if I wanted to bring a building down covertly, i wouldn't want to see too many squibs as it came down.
I would imagine a pressure wave would not manifest as a squib, perhaps i am wrong, the squibs or the pressure wave were the first thing that opened my eyes to the possibility of things not being quite as they semed on that day.
I'm still not convinced it wasn't a demolition, i've yet to see a convincing jet fuel/fire/weakened steel theory.
The non fire blackened, damaged lobby (don't even get me started on the bombs/explosions in the basement) is a kicker too. |
Bear in mind that no demolition expert thinks that the collapse of the towers looks like controlled demolition, not even Danny Jowenko, who did say that about WTC7. Have a look at this analysis by Implosion World. Or for a scientific treatment, see this. I am afraid that they are not as exciting as conspiracy websites! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | eogz wrote: | That pressure wave as the building fell, certainly looked like a squib to me.
I'm not an engineer in any sense of the word.
However if I wanted to bring a building down covertly, i wouldn't want to see too many squibs as it came down.
I would imagine a pressure wave would not manifest as a squib, perhaps i am wrong, the squibs or the pressure wave were the first thing that opened my eyes to the possibility of things not being quite as they semed on that day.
I'm still not convinced it wasn't a demolition, i've yet to see a convincing jet fuel/fire/weakened steel theory.
The non fire blackened, damaged lobby (don't even get me started on the bombs/explosions in the basement) is a kicker too. |
Bear in mind that no demolition expert thinks that the collapse of the towers looks like controlled demolition, not even Danny Jowenko, who did say that about WTC7. Have a look at this analysis by Implosion World. Or for a scientific treatment, see this. I am afraid that they are not as exciting as conspiracy websites! |
demolition experts are experts at setting up and carrying out demolitons as well as the clean up, ANYBODY can compare video footage to judge if CD should be considered as a possibility as long as there are enough traits there for it to be suspected.
if CD was used on the towers then it was not carried out in the usual way ie bottom up, this much is obvious from the footage, so controlled demoliton experts only have the same footage as anyone else to form a opinon from, which is a building collapse from the top down, the implications of saying it was a controlled demoliton could be what stops any company coming forward, espeically if it would mean losing business as a result or goverment contracts etc.
wtc7 is a classic example of CD and what most experts would expect to see from a CD.
now i can only guess why they won't come forward to confirm CD should be a suspect, but the fact remains regardless of if they do or not, that explosions are seen heard and felt in parts of the buildings other than the impact zone and basement, squibs are clearly seen and also flashes, the building also turned to mostly dust and fell at a very rapid speed regardless of if it was freefall or a little over. pools of molten metal were also mention by some firemen as well as reports and pictures.
now when you consider all this information and then consider what happens as a result of explosives/thermate/CD not even looking into the possibility seriously has no logic at all unless you have every intention to cover something up and keep the public oblivious to what the truth or evidence is pointing to.
a honest investigastion would not of left out first responder witnesses if it had been honest.
nist do not even bother to explain anything after the point the collapse started and anything they do say is pure speculation, but nothing you could call serious investigation work.
quite why demoliton experts will not comment is either reflective of the level of control over people or the level of fear amongst people, because anyone can tell from video evidence alone the offical story dos'nt add up.
basic science proves and shows it, as well as many other examples of steel skyscapper fires and a harray of other things. pointless getting into all that though. the fact is regardless of if demoliton experts have commented to say it looks like a demo dos'nt make the evidence dissapear that was not accounted for by NIST or the goverments offical story.
thats the way it will always be untill victims familys, first responders and citizens of the US start being taken seriously and these matters are reinvestigated from what i can tell. you can sit there and try to justify it or pass evidence of for something bizzare, call people conspiracy theorists all you like, it dos'nt give people answers to the questions they asking just because bushwacker thinks he knows what this or that is by guessing without really knowing in a lot of cases.
untill that happens people will continue to call for a new investigastion, as any possibility of goverment involvement or the event not being investigated properly is not something a democracy(apparently) should stand for.
however the faliure to even look into the concerns on a adult level just makes it stink more like a cover up than anything else. the constant belittling, ignoreing and omitting people out of this as well as the inability by the mainstream media to report important issues in a fair and responsible way just adds more wait to the issues being raised by so called conspiracy theorists, and it makes people wonder who the real conspiracy theorists are, because once you get into all of this it becomes obvious who the ones are avoiding the issue on a public level where people can make up there own minds.
again we have to guess why this is. my guess is if it is debated on a public level the evidence is so easy to see people would know there are valid questions raised by so called conspiracy theorists. and you are either in pay to help keep a lid on it so to speak or in very deep denial which is more about saving face or not being seen to agree with 'conspiracy theorists' rather thant truth or agreeance that there are valid questions that need answering even if it might not mean a cover-up, but no harm in finding out if there is nothing to hide, the main reason i formed this opinon of you is simply your inability to admit the obvious in a few cases, though i doubt you give a f*** what i think, as the same would be said about you and your constant mockery by myself and others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
so the plane crashed into the tower, exploded on impact causing a huge fireball, some of which traveled down the elevator shafts and exploded again on the sub level and lobby to totally destory them as well as numerous floors throughout the towers as reported and felt by firemen? and all at differant times? but still left enough jet fuel at the top to burn at a high enough tempreture to soften the steel and turn the buildings into mostly dust as a result.
theres no end to the amazing things jetfuel can do, why is it not used in warfare as a weapon as opposed to explosives bombs and missles?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | eogz wrote: | That pressure wave as the building fell, certainly looked like a squib to me.
I'm not an engineer in any sense of the word.
However if I wanted to bring a building down covertly, i wouldn't want to see too many squibs as it came down.
I would imagine a pressure wave would not manifest as a squib, perhaps i am wrong, the squibs or the pressure wave were the first thing that opened my eyes to the possibility of things not being quite as they semed on that day.
I'm still not convinced it wasn't a demolition, i've yet to see a convincing jet fuel/fire/weakened steel theory.
The non fire blackened, damaged lobby (don't even get me started on the bombs/explosions in the basement) is a kicker too. |
Bear in mind that no demolition expert thinks that the collapse of the towers looks like controlled demolition, not even Danny Jowenko, who did say that about WTC7. Have a look at this analysis by Implosion World. Or for a scientific treatment, see this. I am afraid that they are not as exciting as conspiracy websites! |
demolition experts are experts at setting up and carrying out demolitons as well as the clean up, ANYBODY can compare video footage to judge if CD should be considered as a possibility as long as there are enough traits there for it to be suspected.
if CD was used on the towers then it was not carried out in the usual way ie bottom up, this much is obvious from the footage, so controlled demoliton experts only have the same footage as anyone else to form a opinon from, which is a building collapse from the top down, the implications of saying it was a controlled demoliton could be what stops any company coming forward, espeically if it would mean losing business as a result or goverment contracts etc.
wtc7 is a classic example of CD and what most experts would expect to see from a CD.
now i can only guess why they won't come forward to confirm CD should be a suspect, but the fact remains regardless of if they do or not, that explosions are seen heard and felt in parts of the buildings other than the impact zone and basement, squibs are clearly seen and also flashes, the building also turned to mostly dust and fell at a very rapid speed regardless of if it was freefall or a little over. pools of molten metal were also mention by some firemen as well as reports and pictures.
now when you consider all this information and then consider what happens as a result of explosives/thermate/CD not even looking into the possibility seriously has no logic at all unless you have every intention to cover something up and keep the public oblivious to what the truth or evidence is pointing to.
a honest investigastion would not of left out first responder witnesses if it had been honest.
nist do not even bother to explain anything after the point the collapse started and anything they do say is pure speculation, but nothing you could call serious investigation work.
quite why demoliton experts will not comment is either reflective of the level of control over people or the level of fear amongst people, because anyone can tell from video evidence alone the offical story dos'nt add up.
basic science proves and shows it, as well as many other examples of steel skyscapper fires and a harray of other things. pointless getting into all that though. the fact is regardless of if demoliton experts have commented to say it looks like a demo dos'nt make the evidence dissapear that was not accounted for by NIST or the goverments offical story.
thats the way it will always be untill victims familys, first responders and citizens of the US start being taken seriously and these matters are reinvestigated from what i can tell. you can sit there and try to justify it or pass evidence of for something bizzare, call people conspiracy theorists all you like, it dos'nt give people answers to the questions they asking just because bushwacker thinks he knows what this or that is by guessing without really knowing in a lot of cases.
untill that happens people will continue to call for a new investigastion, as any possibility of goverment involvement or the event not being investigated properly is not something a democracy(apparently) should stand for.
however the faliure to even look into the concerns on a adult level just makes it stink more like a cover up than anything else. the constant belittling, ignoreing and omitting people out of this as well as the inability by the mainstream media to report important issues in a fair and responsible way just adds more wait to the issues being raised by so called conspiracy theorists, and it makes people wonder who the real conspiracy theorists are, because once you get into all of this it becomes obvious who the ones are avoiding the issue on a public level where people can make up there own minds.
again we have to guess why this is. my guess is if it is debated on a public level the evidence is so easy to see people would know there are valid questions raised by so called conspiracy theorists. and you are either in pay to help keep a lid on it so to speak or in very deep denial which is more about saving face or not being seen to agree with 'conspiracy theorists' rather thant truth or agreeance that there are valid questions that need answering even if it might not mean a cover-up, but no harm in finding out if there is nothing to hide, the main reason i formed this opinon of you is simply your inability to admit the obvious in a few cases, though i doubt you give a f*** what i think, as the same would be said about you and your constant mockery by myself and others. |
Demolition experts also have a lot of experience of watching demolitions and are therefore rather better placed than anyone else to comment. The reason they do not come forward to comment is most likely to be because they believe the generally accepted version of events to be correct.
As has been endlessly pointed out, and I illustrated again in a posting last night, fires often produce explosions from all sorts of sources, this does not mean they were demolition charges. There were no signs whatsoever of any damage from these earlier explosions and no reason to start setting off demolition charges in advance of demolishing the towers.
No one has explained how demolition charges on the impact floors could have survived the plane impact and the fires, no known explosive and detonator combination could have done so. No one has convincingly explained how the buildings could be prepared for demolition without the occupants noticing.
Controlled demolition does not normally produce molten metal and the buildings did not mostly turn to dust.
The only way to investigate the possibility of demolition would be to examine the remains of the steel structure for indications of the effect of explosives. The steel was extensively examined by volunteer structural engineers, not part of any government agency, who looked for anything significant. They did not find any evidence of the use of explosives.
There is simply not the slightest evidence of controlled demolition that stands up to scrutiny, and no theory about how it could even be done that does so either. The collapse of the towers has been exhaustively examined by NIST, using both their own expertise and outside specialists. However nothing could ever convince the conspiracy theorists that they are simply wrong, so I suppose I am wasting my time trying to argue against you with facts and logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
Car 50 stopped is at level B1 - which is a few levels above where it needs to get to before it starts destroying walls - not to mention the 50 ton hydraulic press ...... keep trying though .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | eogz wrote: | That pressure wave as the building fell, certainly looked like a squib to me.
I'm not an engineer in any sense of the word.
However if I wanted to bring a building down covertly, i wouldn't want to see too many squibs as it came down.
I would imagine a pressure wave would not manifest as a squib, perhaps i am wrong, the squibs or the pressure wave were the first thing that opened my eyes to the possibility of things not being quite as they semed on that day.
I'm still not convinced it wasn't a demolition, i've yet to see a convincing jet fuel/fire/weakened steel theory.
The non fire blackened, damaged lobby (don't even get me started on the bombs/explosions in the basement) is a kicker too. |
Bear in mind that no demolition expert thinks that the collapse of the towers looks like controlled demolition, not even Danny Jowenko, who did say that about WTC7. Have a look at this analysis by Implosion World. Or for a scientific treatment, see this. I am afraid that they are not as exciting as conspiracy websites! |
demolition experts are experts at setting up and carrying out demolitons as well as the clean up, ANYBODY can compare video footage to judge if CD should be considered as a possibility as long as there are enough traits there for it to be suspected.
if CD was used on the towers then it was not carried out in the usual way ie bottom up, this much is obvious from the footage, so controlled demoliton experts only have the same footage as anyone else to form a opinon from, which is a building collapse from the top down, the implications of saying it was a controlled demoliton could be what stops any company coming forward, espeically if it would mean losing business as a result or goverment contracts etc.
wtc7 is a classic example of CD and what most experts would expect to see from a CD.
now i can only guess why they won't come forward to confirm CD should be a suspect, but the fact remains regardless of if they do or not, that explosions are seen heard and felt in parts of the buildings other than the impact zone and basement, squibs are clearly seen and also flashes, the building also turned to mostly dust and fell at a very rapid speed regardless of if it was freefall or a little over. pools of molten metal were also mention by some firemen as well as reports and pictures.
now when you consider all this information and then consider what happens as a result of explosives/thermate/CD not even looking into the possibility seriously has no logic at all unless you have every intention to cover something up and keep the public oblivious to what the truth or evidence is pointing to.
a honest investigastion would not of left out first responder witnesses if it had been honest.
nist do not even bother to explain anything after the point the collapse started and anything they do say is pure speculation, but nothing you could call serious investigation work.
quite why demoliton experts will not comment is either reflective of the level of control over people or the level of fear amongst people, because anyone can tell from video evidence alone the offical story dos'nt add up.
basic science proves and shows it, as well as many other examples of steel skyscapper fires and a harray of other things. pointless getting into all that though. the fact is regardless of if demoliton experts have commented to say it looks like a demo dos'nt make the evidence dissapear that was not accounted for by NIST or the goverments offical story.
thats the way it will always be untill victims familys, first responders and citizens of the US start being taken seriously and these matters are reinvestigated from what i can tell. you can sit there and try to justify it or pass evidence of for something bizzare, call people conspiracy theorists all you like, it dos'nt give people answers to the questions they asking just because bushwacker thinks he knows what this or that is by guessing without really knowing in a lot of cases.
untill that happens people will continue to call for a new investigastion, as any possibility of goverment involvement or the event not being investigated properly is not something a democracy(apparently) should stand for.
however the faliure to even look into the concerns on a adult level just makes it stink more like a cover up than anything else. the constant belittling, ignoreing and omitting people out of this as well as the inability by the mainstream media to report important issues in a fair and responsible way just adds more wait to the issues being raised by so called conspiracy theorists, and it makes people wonder who the real conspiracy theorists are, because once you get into all of this it becomes obvious who the ones are avoiding the issue on a public level where people can make up there own minds.
again we have to guess why this is. my guess is if it is debated on a public level the evidence is so easy to see people would know there are valid questions raised by so called conspiracy theorists. and you are either in pay to help keep a lid on it so to speak or in very deep denial which is more about saving face or not being seen to agree with 'conspiracy theorists' rather thant truth or agreeance that there are valid questions that need answering even if it might not mean a cover-up, but no harm in finding out if there is nothing to hide, the main reason i formed this opinon of you is simply your inability to admit the obvious in a few cases, though i doubt you give a f*** what i think, as the same would be said about you and your constant mockery by myself and others. |
Demolition experts also have a lot of experience of watching demolitions and are therefore rather better placed than anyone else to comment. The reason they do not come forward to comment is most likely to be because they believe the generally accepted version of events to be correct.
As has been endlessly pointed out, and I illustrated again in a posting last night, fires often produce explosions from all sorts of sources, this does not mean they were demolition charges. There were no signs whatsoever of any damage from these earlier explosions and no reason to start setting off demolition charges in advance of demolishing the towers.
No one has explained how demolition charges on the impact floors could have survived the plane impact and the fires, no known explosive and detonator combination could have done so. No one has convincingly explained how the buildings could be prepared for demolition without the occupants noticing.
Controlled demolition does not normally produce molten metal and the buildings did not mostly turn to dust.
The only way to investigate the possibility of demolition would be to examine the remains of the steel structure for indications of the effect of explosives. The steel was extensively examined by volunteer structural engineers, not part of any government agency, who looked for anything significant. They did not find any evidence of the use of explosives.
There is simply not the slightest evidence of controlled demolition that stands up to scrutiny, and no theory about how it could even be done that does so either. The collapse of the towers has been exhaustively examined by NIST, using both their own expertise and outside specialists. However nothing could ever convince the conspiracy theorists that they are simply wrong, so I suppose I am wasting my time trying to argue against you with facts and logic. |
the reasons for demolition experts not coming forward is open to debate, and could indeed be for any reason you think or any reason i think, yes they will have a better idea of what a controlled demolition looks like but anyone can compare footage for simularities or traits, you don't need to be an expert to see this or understand it all you need is information on cd's inorder to know what to look for.
there were no reported fires on the floors other firemen felt and heard explosions and quite why there would be on the 24th floor etc is puzzling.
who's to say charges were not set off upon impact on the effected floors if they were rigged? and how they got there does not matter if there were indeed explosives, that is a question for others to answer to and explain, and it does not change the evidence for CD just because i did'nt know how they planned it if it is a CD.
i also said thermate/CD/explosives not just CD, you see when there is evidence for something , that dos'nt mean you automatically know how it was planned and what they used where or if it was a mixture, you can only go by what the evidence points to, so molten metal would of been a result of thermate if the theory is true, which can be used to cut through steel to help the natural collapse of the top portion, FOLLOWED by CD.
and yes the building did turn mostly to dust, watch any video you like.
yes they examined the remaining steel, the bits they did'nt ship of but the bits they saved. there is still lots of photographic evidence and video evidence as well as witnesses, which a true investigastion would look over and take seriously, unlike the commission report. there is also a thing called pyshics, which can work out forces needed to cause the destruction seen and distance steel beams were thrown. there are more ways than just looking at steel to sum up with a likely cause or confirm the offical version, as well as get the previously ignored on the record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
so the plane crashed into the tower, exploded on impact causing a huge fireball, some of which traveled down the elevator shafts and exploded again on the sub level and lobby to totally destory them as well as numerous floors throughout the towers as reported and felt by firemen? and all at differant times? but still left enough jet fuel at the top to burn at a high enough tempreture to soften the steel and turn the buildings into mostly dust as a result.
theres no end to the amazing things jetfuel can do, why is it not used in warfare as a weapon as opposed to explosives bombs and missles? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
Car 50 stopped is at level B1 - which is a few levels above where it needs to get to before it starts destroying walls - not to mention the 50 ton hydraulic press ...... keep trying though .... |
The shaft for car 50 went down to sub-level B6. One report says it stopped below B1 before a fireball came down (........In the north tower, with elevator operator Arturo Griffith and carpenter Marlene Cruz aboard, the #50 elevator was hit by a blast, dropped several floors, and stopped below the B1 landing. A large fireball came through the shaft just after Griffith and Cruz were pulled from smoky elevator.) and another report says it dropped to its pit. These could both be accurate if the fireball referred to blew car 50 the rest of the way to its pit.
A 50 ton hydraulic press is not a large item, it is a press capable of exerting 50 ton pressure, not an item weighing 50 tons. (See one for sale on E-Bay here When he says it was gone, I presume he means it was not visible, perhaps covered in rubble.
I do not understand where you are trying to go with all this, very many witnesses saw a fireball, are you trying to say they must all have been wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
so the plane crashed into the tower, exploded on impact causing a huge fireball, some of which traveled down the elevator shafts and exploded again on the sub level and lobby to totally destory them as well as numerous floors throughout the towers as reported and felt by firemen? and all at differant times? but still left enough jet fuel at the top to burn at a high enough tempreture to soften the steel and turn the buildings into mostly dust as a result.
theres no end to the amazing things jetfuel can do, why is it not used in warfare as a weapon as opposed to explosives bombs and missles? |
|
It is, have you not heard of thermobarbic or fuel-air bombs? Here is a link. Just see what such fireballs can do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | exploded again on the sub level and lobby to totally destory them |
The lobby and sub basement were totally destroyed? I never read that. Maybe you are making things up again?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | exploded again on the sub level and lobby to totally destory them |
The lobby and sub basement were totally destroyed? I never read that. Maybe you are making things up again? |
if we want to be picky with wording then ill go ferther and say yes they were totally destroyed, did you not see what happened to the towers?
i was'nt aware the l;obby and basements escaped unscathed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It is, have you not heard of thermobarbic or fuel-air bombs? Here is a link. Just see what such fireballs can do".
do they explode twice to? jet fuel on 9/11 had had not been made into a bomb but did have explosive power when it exploded at the top, how can it have the same explosive power when(if) SOME(not all) of it hit the bottom of the towers? fuel ignites and explodes which spreads the flames etc, it would not explode again to course the same destruction it caused at the top. if it did reach the bottom it would of had more of a flame thrower effect, not explosive effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
for pepik, heres the lobby, in the words of the makers, "the lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OpZjlmIeI
jet fuel dos'nt explode twice once ignited, if it was still inside the fuel tank maybe, but we know it was'nt and had already mixed with the air and been ignited at the top, causing flames(apperntly) to go down elevator shafts, it would not explode again in the lobby or basement, like ive already said, it would be like a flame thrower, and thats only if it is possible for the flames to reach that far down(i do doubt that on its own).
yet no scorch marks or fire in the lobby, instead just a shattered lobby looking more like an explosive or bomb result rather than flames coming down elevator shafts. once the fuel is in open air and if it did manage to escape the inital explosion(for arguements sake) it would not explode but only catch fire if it came into contact with something to ingnite it.
and if it did explode it would not course damage on the scale seen at the top, because if any did manage to escape the initial fireball it would be a significantly less amount of fuel by far, compared to the impact fireball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Argue all you like, marky, people who were there saw the fireball, they smelled the kerosene, they saw what happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Argue all you like, marky, people who were there saw the fireball, they smelled the kerosene, they saw what happened. |
so you really believe jet fuel will exlode more than once in opposite ends of the towers after it has been ignited.
why did the commission ignore a very large portion of people who saw what happened, including first responder witnesses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: kerosene experiment |
|
|
| Here’s an experiment we can try (but preferably not indoors). Poor some kerosene into a tray and throw a lighted match into it. What happens? There is no explosion and kerosene burns only on the match - if it doesn't go out. Fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment |
|
|
So how could there have been a fireball? It was because the fuel was turned into very small droplets or an aerosol, because of the plane stopping suddenly.
Last edited by truthseeker john on Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:19 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | Here’s an experiment we can try (but preferably not indoors). Poor some kerosene into a tray and throw a lighted match into it. What happens? There is no explosion and only the match burns. Fact. |
to be fair thats because it is'nt in a container, most fuels give of vapour or fumes, when they are consealed in a fuel tank for example, the fumes or vapour build up if this is then ignited it causes an explosion which then consumes the fuel creating a fireball. i hope im right on how this works  i could be getting it twisted.
so when the plane hit the towers it was'nt just fuel but also a build up of fumes which is more flamable than the liquid but once ignited consumes the fuel in the fireball, the fuel is flamable also obviously but is'nt what causes the explosion, but its still impossible for the fuel to explode twice in two opposite ends of the towers if the explosion is what went down the elevator shafts, ie: what we are being told to believe is the feul exploded upon impact but went down the elevator shafts and exploded again in the lobby and sub basement and caused the same damage that is seen at the top.
even if it was fuel that went down the elevator shafts and escaped the intial explosion which then got ignited, it would take the same amount of fuel as when the planes impacted at the top to cause the same amount of damage in the lower floors, so its obvious to anyone if fuel went down the elevator shafts is was a fraction of that which exploded at the top, which dos'nt explain the destruction on the lower levels of the building, not to mention that at that stage the vapour build up had already ignited and any vapour coming from the remaing fuel going down the shafts would not be significant enough to cause an explosion and if it did it would only be a very small explosion because only fraction compared to the what was consumed in the intial fireball could of gone down the shafts as most of the fuel was consumed at the top.
jet fuel can certainly burn, but only the vapour causes the explosion which is not very effective once outside of a container, which is why with any plane crash that you can find as an example the first thing that happens is explosion as the vapour is ignited then nothing but buring as the vapour burns and consumes the fuel.
correct me if im wrong but i don't think i am. its why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight.
its been a long time though since i looked into this (school stuff) so ill need to do more research to re learn proply or confirm if im right. if any one can confirm or unconfirm it (honestly) please do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: kerosene |
|
|
| Quote: | | …why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight. |
Yes, we would have a hard job trying to ignite jet fuel itself when in liquid form. It needs a wick like a candle does.
Oh and by the way, most candles are made of paraffin wax - they are not sticks of dynamite. 
Last edited by truthseeker john on Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
the main problem is knowing how much fuel went down the shafts, or if it was the explosion that went down the shafts.
ive heard both claimed so it does get confusing.
but heres an example of the fumes in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj1JbFdDUTk
so don't over do the fuel if you have a bonfire on guyforks.
but the impact of the jet into the towers would of consumed all of the vapour and most of the fuel meaning any other explosions would of been tiny in comparsion if it was raw fuel that went down the shafts. if it was an explosion that went down the shafts then im sorry it car;nt explode again it would only act like a flame thrower, so in that scenerio the explosion was caused by something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | the main problem is knowing how much fuel went down the shafts, or if it was the explosion that went down the shafts.
ive heard both claimed so it does get confusing.
but heres an example of the fumes in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj1JbFdDUTk |
I can assure you that wasn't kerosene! It was most likely petrol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: Re: kerosene |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | Quote: | | …why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight. |
Yes, we would have a hard job trying to ignite jet fuel itself when in liquid form. It needs a wick like a candle does.
Oh and by the way, most candles are made of paraffin wax - they are not sticks of dynamite. |
exactly which is what im saying, the vapour build up would of caused the intial explosion, but how you can cause explosions on lower floors that are just as destructive with less fuel is puzzling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: Re: kerosene |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | | Quote: | | …why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight. |
Yes, we would have a hard job trying to ignite jet fuel itself when in liquid form. It needs a wick like a candle does.
Oh and by the way, most candles are made of paraffin wax - they are not sticks of dynamite. |
exactly which is what im saying, the vapour build up would of caused the intial explosion, but how you can cause explosions on lower floors that are just as destructive with less fuel is puzzling. |
It's not puzzling at all because the jet fuel couldn't have caused those explosions on the lower floors! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | the main problem is knowing how much fuel went down the shafts, or if it was the explosion that went down the shafts.
ive heard both claimed so it does get confusing.
but heres an example of the fumes in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj1JbFdDUTk |
I can assure you that wasn't kerosene! It was most likely petrol. |
yes but its the only demonstration i can find on you tube showing that it is the vapour build up that causes the explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: Re: kerosene |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | | Quote: | | …why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight. |
Yes, we would have a hard job trying to ignite jet fuel itself when in liquid form. It needs a wick like a candle does.
Oh and by the way, most candles are made of paraffin wax - they are not sticks of dynamite. |
exactly which is what im saying, the vapour build up would of caused the intial explosion, but how you can cause explosions on lower floors that are just as destructive with less fuel is puzzling. |
It's not puzzling at all because the jet fuel couldn't have caused those explosions on the lower floors! |
christ o'mighty! go back read carefully and you will find that is what ive been saying all along(baring spelning ewwors )
but covering all bases if it was possible, im saying any explosion would be tiny in comparsion, meaning it could not of coursed that destruction on the lower floors at all, or alone.
Last edited by marky 54 on Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: Re: kerosene |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | | Quote: | | …why certain fuel only burns on top because its the fumes burning and consuming the fuel not the fuel that is actually alight. |
Yes, we would have a hard job trying to ignite jet fuel itself when in liquid form. It needs a wick like a candle does.
Oh and by the way, most candles are made of paraffin wax - they are not sticks of dynamite. |
exactly which is what im saying, the vapour build up would of caused the intial explosion, but how you can cause explosions on lower floors that are just as destructive with less fuel is puzzling. |
It's not puzzling at all because the jet fuel couldn't have caused those explosions on the lower floors! |
christ o'mighty! go back read carefully and you will find that is what ive been saying all along(baring spelning ewwors ) |
Well, we agree, I am agreeing with you!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: kerosene experiment (2) |
|
|
So for those who think that jet fuel caused the explosions here’s another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder; all over it, if you wish.
3) Next, light a match (or a lighter) and hold the flame to the steel girder.
What happens then?
Nothing!
God, why are many Americans stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
