Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11

[AnnaG]

Weren't you looking for the forces that would be applied by high winds?

Nope.

A simple observation of that plane being crashed and the resulting fire-ball would suggest under similar circumstances jet fuel will produce a fire-ball. The fuel that left the building at the time of the 2nd crash was totally consumed in a matter af seconds, not minutes or hours.(in that the fire did not reach the ground...ever)

As I said, kerosene does not burn very quickly. You can't get rid of your 10,000 gallons in seconds.

Even you can't believe that George was the 'king-pin of it all'. You really are too-too much at times. LOL I don't see any benefit in carrying this on any further.

No, I don't. I think Dumbya was a puppet.

Cave dwellers in a 3rd world country could pull it off but this is above all the heads of power that define the US as a global power. Please keep that version close to your heart.
LOL

What version? As I said a bunch of posts ago, I don't follow a particular version, I see the signs of a hole in whatever hypothesis and I want to poke it. So far, the hypothesis that the planes weren't enough to bring the buildings down is riddled with holes. The hypothesis that the planes were controlled remotely is full of holes. The hypothesis about explosives may have some merit. The hypothesis that every single component and the assembly of each of those components was sound is quite unlikely.

 

[Kakato]

You must have missed this clip that was posted only a few pages back. Lighting a standing puddle is not even close to how it reacts when in tiny droplets moving @ speed. This test was for a non-explosive variety, think it ever made it market?? Too bad the clip wasn't longer it would have shown how big the fire was after the initial flash-fire, and how long it burned with force.
YouTube - Kevin Saunders Grain Dust Explosion threw Kevin Saunders 300 feet killed 10


George running the show ... LOL ... the truth does not point to George as being more than a bit-player.

dude,dont make me educate you on explosives because you'll come off looking like someone who doesnt have a clue.

Anything thats a fine powder is highly explosive,anything from grain to the coffee mate you put in your latte every morning,dont believe me then sprinkle a bit of coffee mate over a match to see what happens,watch you dont burn your eyebrows off.

Drop the clips,i have allready shown how easy it is to manipulate them and edit them.

Jets brought down the twin towers,nothing else,Sometimes I wonder why we dont instutionalize you foilers somewhere....oh wait! Thats in the grand plan for the new world order,put all the foilers on Baffin island mining iron ore.

Ya,thats the ticket!:lol:

 

[MHz]

Drop the clips,i have allready shown how easy it is to manipulate them and edit them.

Jets brought down the twin towers,nothing else,Sometimes I wonder why we dont instutionalize you foilers somewhere....oh wait! Thats in the grand plan for the new world order,put all the foilers on Baffin island mining iron ore.

Ya,thats the ticket!:lol:

If this is what you are down too why not just stop posting. What a pathetic reply.
The fuel explosion is a fake, LOL

 

[Kakato]

If this is what you are down too why not just stop posting. What a pathetic reply.
The fuel explosion is a fake, LOL

Well untill you can prove it was a fake then your just speculating and fearmongering,show me some facts and I might take you seriously,so far all you have done is ape every lunatics theory on 9/11 and cut n pasted here like every other foiler does on every web site I frequent.
You contradicted yourself in a post yesterday and when I pointed it out you moved on,like all the foilers do.

Seconds or 5 minutes?
Care to answer that before we move on?

 

[MHz]

Nope.

Why not, surely you don't expect anyone to just take your word than the plane carried more force than what a 140mph wind would. The design was designed to not fail with a full loaded airliner from the era it was built. Yet you have no actual data to say how much either flight weighed. Again your words on the matter are all the proof needed.

As I said, kerosene does not burn very quickly. You can't get rid of your 10,000 gallons in seconds.

You just viewed a clip where it does burn very quickly and the 2nd crash had a fireball outside the building that was anything but tiny yet no comment on how much fuel was consumed making it that big.

What version? As I said a bunch of posts ago, I don't follow a particular version, I see the signs of a hole in whatever hypothesis and I want to poke it. So far, the hypothesis that the planes weren't enough to bring the buildings down is riddled with holes. The hypothesis that the planes were controlled remotely is full of holes. The hypothesis about explosives may have some merit. The hypothesis that every single component and the assembly of each of those components was sound is quite unlikely.

What holes are in the remote flying. I find the theory that once 'any hi-jacker' turns off the transponder the plane cannot be found on any radar set.

Did the samples in that link I supplied meet the original specs? In a word yes, the samples were about as random as you could get. On jobs that size they even have people who inspect things before they are used. Go ahead prove that they were shoddily built, or is that just another thing that gets your words as all the proof that is needed?

 

[MHz]

Well untill you can prove it was a fake then your just speculating and fearmongering,show me some facts and I might take you seriously,so far all you have done is ape every lunatics theory on 9/11 and cut n pasted here like every other foiler does on every web site I frequent.
You contradicted yourself in a post yesterday and when I pointed it out you moved on,like all the foilers do.

Seconds or 5 minutes?
Care to answer that before we move on?

The fireball outside did all the damage it was going to in just a few seconds.
The small portion of fuel that was left inside would have ignited first. That fire would have ignited other flammables already in the building. What it did not do was pool around every column and burn with anything close to complete combustion. That means a low temp fire. As a surface fire it would have burned itself out quite quickly.

The cut and paste are going to stay, they are the opinions of people who do have some authority to speak on some matters. The 911 sites are a good place to find such links, suck it and deal with it.

 

[AnnaG]

Why not, surely you don't expect anyone to just take your word than the plane carried more force than what a 140mph wind would. The design was designed to not fail with a full loaded airliner from the era it was built. Yet you have no actual data to say how much either flight weighed. Again your words on the matter are all the proof needed.

Look, I already explained that the broadside force of a wind doing 140MPH is a lot different than a smaller and faster impact by a plane. Get a grip. It is ridiculous to suggest that a plane hitting a building would not make a hole in the building. Get over it.

You just viewed a clip where it does burn very quickly and the 2nd crash had a fireball outside the building that was anything but tiny yet no comment on how much fuel was consumed making it that big.

Vidclips can be doctored. Same as photos. Speeding up the playtime of the clip would give one a different impression than slowing it down, for instance. Can you guarantee that any of the clips posted here haven't been doctored? I noticed there were a lot of stops and restarts in one clip and I think that was the clip in which there was a fire on an over-head bit of freeway. I wonder why the freeway collapsed. Perhaps it might have been blown up by explosives, too? Maybe someone remote-controlled a plane into it, also?

What holes are in the remote flying. I find the theory that once 'any hi-jacker' turns off the transponder the plane cannot be found on any radar set.

I posted about the remote thing earlier. Scroll back a few days.
You find the theory of what?

Did the samples in that link I supplied meet the original specs? In a word yes, the samples were about as random as you could get. On jobs that size they even have people who inspect things before they are used. Go ahead prove that they were shoddily built, or is that just another thing that gets your words as all the proof that is needed?

So you are saying that every bit of assembly and part of those buildings was in prime condition? lmao

 

[AnnaG]

Spill a gallon of gasoline on the ground and light it. I'll bet it takes at least a minute to burn out. And kerosene burns slower than gasoline.
Spill 10,000 gallons in a confined space and it'll take a few minutes.

 

[MHz]

Spill a gallon of gasoline on the ground and light it. I'll bet it takes at least a minute to burn out. And kerosene burns slower than gasoline.
Spill 10,000 gallons in a confined space and it'll take a few minutes.

Your other post wasn't worth responding to. This one is missing one important factor, you conveniently forgot that the spill speed was at 500mph, just what path would all that fuel take when the fuel tanks were shredded by the steel perimeter every few feet. It all apparently magically all stopped at the core where it suddenly acquired steel-melting capabilities. LOL Like I said a few posts back, I don't see any facts being posted, just two posters saying something is so because they say it is so. LOL
Bye

 

[AnnaG]

Your other post wasn't worth responding to. This one is missing one important factor, you conveniently forgot that the spill speed was at 500mph, just what path would all that fuel take when the fuel tanks were shredded by the steel perimeter every few feet. It all apparently magically all stopped at the core where it suddenly acquired steel-melting capabilities.

Apparently there were no walls or doors inside the perimeter. Just a bunch of steel beams holding everything up. I see. So you are saying that fuel flying through a building burns faster than at other times? I don't believe you. Show some of your own FACTS (not conjecture).

LOL Like I said a few posts back, I don't see any facts being posted,

Not seeing is exactly your problem.

just two posters saying something is so because they say it is so. LOL
Bye

I posted facts but you apparently are too blind to see them or too old to remember them. I remember back a few days when you said the heat from the fire would do nothing to the steel. You were shown to be wrong. Then you tried the explosives bit and posted a couple URLs for some other conjectures. And so on and so forth. Yeah, run away when people punch holes in your frail little arguments.

 

[petros]

So if I put something like a jug of methylhydrate in my woodstove it will melt or at least warp considering its is a far far far hotter buring fuel?

Does anyone want to know why it won't?

When Rumsfeld said the plane is PA was "shot down" he later recanted and state "we" (as in US) never shot the plane down.

NORAD had several CDN CF-18's as part of the exercises that day. Perhaps he wasn't lieing that the US never shot it down since the Canadian pilots potentially could have fired the missle ending the hijacking.

 

[MHz]

Apparently there were no walls or doors inside the perimeter. Just a bunch of steel beams holding everything up. I see. So you are saying that fuel flying through a building burns faster than at other times? I don't believe you. Show some of your own FACTS (not conjecture).

Look at the 2nd crash. A lot of fuel burned up outside the building, it was moving and it was totally consumed in less than 10 seconds. That is all the proof you shopuld need, but for whatever reason it won't be.
In a building like the towers all the interier wall are non-load bearing ones. On any floor they could all be removed and it would be just as strong. Since the fuel did make it's exit across the building it is also apparent that the walls were flattened.

Not seeing is exactly your problem. I posted facts but you apparently are too blind to see them or too old to remember them. I remember back a few days when you said the heat from the fire would do nothing to the steel. You were shown to be wrong. Then you tried the explosives bit and posted a couple URLs for some other conjectures. And so on and so forth. Yeah, run away when people punch holes in your frail little arguments.

No I quit threads when it comes down to this sort of post, here is a great chance to punch a hole in one of my arguments (there is more than one). Show me the data that compares the stress on either tower that compared the planes force at impact compared to 140mph winds. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Go buy some scrap-iron I-beam and sink one end into the ground and attach a cable to the top (12" x 20' should do the trick) Now put a big poop of fuel at the base and light it, time how long it takes before the I-beam falls over by itself. After 24 hrs of fire pull on the cable with a D8 and measure the torque on the cable to the point the I-beam bends. Now do the same to a beam that has had no fire. The difference will be what heat caused.

Now build a model that has those same size I-beams in number the same as the tower had and weld plates between them all every 10 ft in height. In this case it would be a 0', 10', and 20'. Now repeat your experiment with fire except this time you would need several D8's and the structure would still be standing.

 

[CDNBear]

Why are people debating science with foilers who haven't clue one about what science is?

 

[MHz]

Why are people debating science with foilers who haven't clue one about what science is?

Great another fioler joins the party, you guys might even qualify for a group rate.
LOL BTW your post didn't include and data at all, just the clash of your inner-gears.

 

[CDNBear]

Great another fioler joins the party, you guys might even qualify for a group rate.
LOL BTW your post didn't include and data at all, just the clash of your inner-gears.

Which posts would those be?

And if you think what you've posted is science, real data or even remotely logical, can I interest you in some property in Florida?

 

[MHz]

Start with #313
As a man who works on those structures I thought you would have appreciated the link that has identified some samples of steel from several quite random places in the towers. Why would you not call that 'data' as being just that. Scientifically tested parts that either passed or did not pass specific requirements.

 

[Kakato]

The fireball outside did all the damage it was going to in just a few seconds.
The small portion of fuel that was left inside would have ignited first. That fire would have ignited other flammables already in the building. What it did not do was pool around every column and burn with anything close to complete combustion. That means a low temp fire. As a surface fire it would have burned itself out quite quickly.

The cut and paste are going to stay, they are the opinions of people who do have some authority to speak on some matters. The 911 sites are a good place to find such links, suck it and deal with it.

Well at least try and find some new cut n pastes,all those you post were busted years ago as mostly quote mining,something every single foiler post has.
It might sway your foiler buds but not the peeps who can actually think for themselves.

 

[CDNBear]

Start with #313

What? You want me to go through all your posts and show you how ridiculous your claims are and how they fly in the face of proven science?

I already have, you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, failing to grasp your own failings and those of the people you seem to have been conned by.

As a man who works on those structures I thought you would have appreciated the link that has identified some samples of steel from several quite random places in the towers. Why would you not call that 'data' as being just that. Scientifically tested parts that either passed or did not pass specific requirements.

Please, if you wouldn't mind, could you supply said link one more time?

 

[MHz]

Appendix B - The WTC Report.

Just do the side loads for 140mph winds and the airplane crashes for the aircraft used as a model (fully loaded 707 with 24,000 gal fuel) compared to the actual weight of the 767, with 10,000 gal of fuel, that did the impacts.

The theoretical capacity is 24,000 US gal, actual is about 10,000 gal. That is a weight difference of 95760 lbs. Take that 100,000 off the weight of the 676 and it comes down to the weight of a fully loaded 707.

You can't even do the research to get that far. Give it up.

 

[MHz]

Well at least try and find some new cut n pastes,all those you post were busted years ago as mostly quote mining,something every single foiler post has.
It might sway your foiler buds but not the peeps who can actually think for themselves.

So, all the above just to say you don't know how much fuel that fireball contained.
Or did answering a question not occur to you?