Why The Towers Fell

Status
Not open for further replies.
quandary121

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Just the Facts said:
Two completely different buildings, two completely different airplanes, two completely different sets of circumstances, two completely different sets of results....WOW!!! Mindboggling!!! 8O

You're really on to something there. :p



Well, there goes your pentagon conspiracy. :-(
Click to expand...

i see you disregarded the part about aviation fuel .and that the building did not catch fire enough to cause it to collapse.?
I'm sure if you or we had pictures you would have seen parts of this plane in the hole made, but your too dumb or blind to that, as you know that the pentagon attack has been proved to be a hoax ,this may be two different buildings and different planes also, but the similarity's in the two should show you that what has been told you is b/s but your ignorance to this fact is clear ,and if you think that your being clever with you cocky reply your not your in denial of the facts pal
 
Just the Facts

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Well, I can see fine so I guess I must just be dumb. Thanks for setting me straight. :p

Nice deflection though. :lol:

Well, not really, I'm just feeling generous today. :cool:
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Just the Facts said:
Two completely different buildings, two completely different airplanes, two completely different sets of circumstances, two completely different sets of results....WOW!!! Mindboggling!!! 8O

You're really on to something there. :p



Well, there goes your pentagon conspiracy. :-(
Click to expand...

Completely different circumstances. How do you mangle the facts so terribly, what completely differnet circumstances two aircraft collisions with skyscrapers where's the gulf between those events?
 
lone wolf

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Fuel for a B-25 is high octane gasoline which would have vaporized almost immediately in the explosion whereas the kerosene/paraffin mix of jet fuel is somewhat slower burning. The collision itself involved a much smaller airplane flying at a much lower speed.
 
quandary121

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Just the Facts said:
Well then it must have been a missile that hit the Empire State Building!! :p
Click to expand...

more useless comments nothing you say is ever on track, you flip flop around like a fish out of water, when evidence is shown to you you come back with a tirade of meaningless drivel, as you know you cannot refute the facts shown to you grow up half wit,or state your case for the things you believe to be true so i can shoot you down in flames like the other idiots here
 
Just the Facts

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
lone wolf said:
Fuel for a B-25 is high octane gasoline which would have vaporized almost immediately in the explosion whereas the kerosene/paraffin mix of jet fuel is somewhat slower burning. The collision itself involved a much smaller airplane flying at a much lower speed.
Click to expand...

You make that sound convincing but everyone knows it was a missile that hit the Empire State Building. That's why it didn't collapse from all the jet fuel. Just look at the size of the hole....way too small for the wingspan of a B-25. No way that was a plane that hit it. No way. :lol:
 
Just the Facts

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
quandary121 said:
more useless comments nothing you say is ever on track, you flip flop around like a fish out of water, when evidence is shown to you you come back with a tirade of meaningless drivel, as you know you cannot refute the facts shown to you grow up half wit,or state your case for the things you believe to be true so i can shoot you down in flames like the other idiots here
Click to expand...

:lol: You are absolutely adorable!!!
 
quandary121

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
lone wolf said:
Fuel for a B-25 is high octane gasoline which would have vaporized almost immediately in the explosion whereas the kerosene/paraffin mix of jet fuel is somewhat slower burning. The collision itself involved a much smaller airplane flying at a much lower speed.
Click to expand...

so what are you saying here lone-wolf that the fact that the fuel caught fire means nothing, because it did not reach the same kind of temperatures or what.!!! come off it pal the fact that a plane hit the building and the fuel burnt up same as the WTC aviation fuel did as we can see in the footage due to the fire ball and then the dark smoke .concecuences would have been the same surly.????
 
lone wolf

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
quandary121 said:
so what are you saying here lone-wolf that the fact that the fuel caught fire means nothing, because it did not reach the same kind of temperatures or what.!!! come off it pal the fact that a plane hit the building and the fuel burnt up same as the WTC aviation fuel did as we can see in the footage due to the fire ball and then the dark smoke .concecuences would have been the same surly.????
Click to expand...

Fuel for the piston-engined B-25 would flash at a much higher temperature than jet fuel - but there was nowhere near the volume. If combustables weren't set alight immediately in the fireball, there would be almost nothing left to act as an accellerant.
 
quandary121

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
lone wolf said:
Fuel for the piston-engined B-25 would flash at a much higher temperature than jet fuel - but there was nowhere near the volume. If combustables weren't set alight immediately in the fireball, there would be almost nothing left to act as an accellerant.
Click to expand...

but there was nowhere near the volume
Click to expand...
where did you get that little gem from i did not read it there and it is said that the planes that hit the towers were not fully loaded with fuel either

Fuel for the piston-engined B-25 would flash at a much higher temperature than jet fuel
Click to expand...

IN your own words explain that if this fuel burns at a higher temperature .? why did not the empire state building collapse, like is suggested that the WTC did, as this is the basis of all the arguments for the destruction of the towers, how very convenient to say one thing about one incident, and then say that this could not happen in the other, my god that takes some logic ,admit it i have given you an example you cannot repudiate
 
lone wolf

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
quandary121 said:
where did you get that little gem from i did not read it there and it is said that the planes that hit the towers were not fully loaded with fuel either

The fuel capacity for a B-25 (Mitchell in RAF) is less than a tenth that of a Boeing 767 - PLUS it was nearing the end of its flight so there would not be more than 100 gallons aboard - vs the near 10 thousand gallons a 767 loaded for LAX would have on board

IN your own words explain that if this fuel burns at a higher temperature .? why did not the empire state building collapse, like is suggested that the WTC did, as this is the basis of all the arguments for the destruction of the towers, how very convenient to say one thing about one incident, and then say that this could not happen in the other, my god that takes some logic ,admit it i have given you an example you cannot repudiate
Click to expand...

In my own words? If I cut and paste, I credit the author, thank you very much.

Yes, gasoline burns at a higher temperature than kerosene. The minimal fuel (gasoline) aboard the B-25 would have vapourized immediately into one very hot fireball that would have dissipated within seconds. Approximately 100 times the volume of slower burning jet fuel at WTC is going to give off considerably more heat over a longer period of time. Fire will cause steel to plasticize long before it actually begins to melt. Further, impact would have severely damaged or completely sheared truss/joist/OWSJ to spandel or core connections at several levels.

Empire State Building was of completely different construction. Don't forget, it was erected in a time when craftsmen took pride in their workmanship and wages plus materials didn't encourage the cutting of corners to cut costs.

http://www.werboom.de/vt/html/body_707_vs_767.html
http://forthardknox.com/2008/02/07/1945-empire-state-b-25-crash-vs-9-11/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/B-25_bomber
 
Last edited:
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
If I might add......the Empire State Building was constructed before computer modeling, etc........and was extremely over-engineered for safety. The two towers were engineered to resist expected stresses to close tolerances.......just look at the two buildings.....the Empire State Building is almost squat in comparison to those thin needle like spires that were the WTC.....
 
quandary121

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Colpy said:
If I might add......the Empire State Building was constructed before computer modeling, etc........and was extremely over-engineered for safety. The two towers were engineered to resist expected stresses to close tolerances.......just look at the two buildings.....the Empire State Building is almost squat in comparison to those thin needle like spires that were the WTC.....
Click to expand...

look colpy did the WTC fall because of jet fuel or not..?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom