9/11 - Thirteen Years Later

[IronTiger]

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

[lockmat]

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

 

I've voted almost a Republican straight ticket ballot my entire life. Maybe a few independents, but never a democrat, so some might even call me a "far" right winger. Even defended Bush's administration at the time when no MWDs were found.

 

US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine I would venture to say is a staunch Republican, but I don't know that for a fact, I could be wrong.

 

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry said 9/11 was a 30 year conspiracy.

 

And I don't think this "truth" movement is a partisan movement. They pretty much think all of govt is corrupt. Is it not?

[Montrose1100]

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

I don't know man, that Oprah shape shifting/lizard eye video is pretty convincing.

http://youtu.be/9BPWyS8Qctg

[Fringe]

Zero have. But the buildings didn't fall over when they hit them either. The NIST report said it was fire that brought them down anyway. I've also heard that the jet fuel would have burned up in the initial blast.

 

But when they say they're supposed to withstand the hit of a 707, to be fair, I don't know what that exactly means. Does it mean they won't topple over upon impact? Does it mean the fire created by a 707 won't weaken the steel and bring it down? I'm not just saying this because it support the argument I hold more strongly to, but the former seems to be the intent.

 

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.  

[IronTiger]

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.

Just like the Minnesota I-35 bridge, only a few gussets were actually compromised, but the rest of the bridge failed because of its design.

[lockmat]

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.  

 

Do you know if all three buildings had the lightweight trusses?

 

If that applies to building 7, that still makes me wonder about the 100 foot free-fall speed, which NIST even says happened. I just can't see how that could happened if each floor is collapsing onto one another.

 

And then all the eyewitness testimony of explosions that weren't planes, what were those? There's video/audio evidence of it on youtube all over the place. There's even testimony of an explosion in the basement of one of the twin towers. I don't mean to detract from the truss question, I'm looking forward to that answer.

[OkieEric]

lockmat, have you checked out this site?  This guy does a pretty decent job debunking what the conspiracy folks have been saying - or at least were saying at the time.  It's a bit outdated so I'm sure the conspiracy folks have changed their tune, but he's got some good images showing the extent of the damage to south side of WTC 7

 

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

NIST addresses the free-fall question here about 1/3rd of the way down.  Unless you are a structural engineer or have a better understanding of the physics of this than these folks, I don't see why you would question their response

 

I did a quick youtube search regarding these phantom explosions that weren't planes, and all I see are nutcases trying to claim there were no planes, or trying to pass off a window blowing out as an explosion.  So if anything this tells me there are a lot of folks even more delusional about this whole thing than I thought

 

This whole thing makes me wonder - has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist changing his mind?  Unfortunately it seems to be a one-way street

[lockmat]

lockmat, have you checked out this site?  This guy does a pretty decent job debunking what the conspiracy folks have been saying - or at least were saying at the time.  It's a bit outdated so I'm sure the conspiracy folks have changed their tune, but he's got some good images showing the extent of the damage to south side of WTC 7

 

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

NIST addresses the free-fall question here about 1/3rd of the way down.  Unless you are a structural engineer or have a better understanding of the physics of this than these folks, I don't see why you would question their response

 

I did a quick youtube search regarding these phantom explosions that weren't planes, and all I see are nutcases trying to claim there were no planes, or trying to pass off a window blowing out as an explosion.  So if anything this tells me there are a lot of folks even more delusional about this whole thing than I thought

 

This whole thing makes me wonder - has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist changing his mind?  Unfortunately it seems to be a one-way street

 

Thanks Okie, actually, I have seen some of the videos from that website and I watched the freefalling one yesterday. If it's the same one I watched, it only address the twin towers, not building 7. But I'll double check.

 

I briefly read the NIST info the other day and will do so in more depth when I have more time. But if I remember right, the A&E group had some counter arguments to them.

 

Here is some explosion testimony that isn't from a nutcase. He was pronounced dead a few days before the NIST report on #7. Not saying they're related, but it is a coincidence. The beginning of the video is an interview he did the day of the event after he escaped #7, then it goes into an interview he did years later.

[democide]

On a slightly different topic, did anyone see 6 military helicopters fly over the Katy freeway, heading east towards downtown at around 1:50 pm?  They looked like Apache helicopters to me.

[lockmat]

On a slightly different topic, did anyone see 6 military helicopters fly over the Katy freeway, heading east towards downtown at around 1:50 pm?  They looked like Apache helicopters to me.

 

Nope, but I remember a year or so ago seeing a military helicopter flying directly over 45N, heading north. It was weird and cool at the same time.

[Fringe]

Do you know if all three buildings had the lightweight trusses?

 

If that applies to building 7, that still makes me wonder about the 100 foot free-fall speed, which NIST even says happened. I just can't see how that could happened if each floor is collapsing onto one another.

 

And then all the eyewitness testimony of explosions that weren't planes, what were those? There's video/audio evidence of it on youtube all over the place. There's even testimony of an explosion in the basement of one of the twin towers. I don't mean to detract from the truss question, I'm looking forward to that answer.

 

Lockmat, I honestly don't know if building 7 had truss construction and really don't have a good explanation why it collapsed. The Towers collapse are understandable, building 7 other then just plain shoddy construction should not have happened. 

[lockmat]

Lockmat, I honestly don't know if building 7 had truss construction and really don't have a good explanation why it collapsed. The Towers collapse are understandable, building 7 other then just plain shoddy construction should not have happened. 

 

I'll try to look into it and will report back.

 

7 was built in the late 80's I believe, that would be really disappointing if a building of such importance had shoddy construction. Who knows, guess it's possible...

[democide]

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration...

 

Bush is a warmongering, unconstitutional murderer, but so is Obama.  Just today he announced that a drone strike killed an American and another hostage by accident.  It was an honest mistake and he was unaware of the strike.  How convenient for this proven liar and the rest of the liars in government to say they knew nothing, they remember nothing, they never thought it could happen, blah blah blah.  And it doesn't matter to the dumb American people sadly, because they believe that 9/11 changed everything.  It's all in the name of homeland security.  

 

Like I keep saying, they keep getting away with it even when caught murdering Americans.  This country is so screwed up.

[lockmat]

Totally did not expect a response from Cherry Demolition after I asked them about WTC 7, but did!

 

They certainly didn't give the p.c. or a conclusive response. 

 

There are many differing thoughts and questions that surround the events of that day. Unfortunately, while it might look like it may have been, there is no way of knowing for sure without the investigation reports what exactly happened in building 7's collapse. However, our hearts and prayers continue to go out to all of us who lost loved ones in the events of that day and in the aftermath of the war that followed. God bless America and God bless our troops.

 

 

 

[lockmat]

I guess since I was watching thos CIA videos about 9/11, youtube thought I wanted to watch CIA videos, so this one popped up when I logged in the other day and I watched it. 

 

It's about a lady, who I don't even know if she is a 9/11 whistleblower or a whistleblower at all, but apparently she has a book out that details her time as a spy in the CIA.

 

So this guy, who I've seen in passing on youtube before is interviewing her. The topic is not 9/11 or whether it was an inside job. But she was talking about why she quit the agency and I was not expecting this at all, but what she said definitely makes you wonder even more (read below). And just note, the interviewer doesn't go into, "so you think it was an inside job" etc. No, he doesn't go that route.

 

I'm not saying this is proof it was an inside job. But it just gives more fuel to the fire to make you wonder.

 

Anyway, here is the quote. If you want to watch her say it, start watching at the 30 minute mark.

 

 

Every day I was reading in the Washington Post and hearing the members of the administration say that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was linked with Al Quida and then I would go into work at the CIA where I was working with people who this was their area of expertise, and to a person they said we have no evidence of WMDs, there’s no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was kind of the straw that broke the camels back for me in terms of disillusionment with the agency.

And I wasn’t there for a particular conversation but it was recorded to me by a colleague who worked in the counterproliferation division that a manager gathered his group together of about 20-30 CIA people and said, “Look let’s face it, the president wants to go to war and our job is to give him a reason to do so.” This was kind of shocking to me because thats not the job of the CIA or certainly not the job of theCIA as I saw it. That’s not what I signed up for. I wanted to serve my country. And I became aware that I was not serving my country, I was serving this organization. And the organization was not serving the country. It was serving the wishes at that time of the administration.

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

I'm pretty sure it's obvious to most people that oil was the motivating factor behind the War on Terror, but these 9/11 pseudo-conspiracies are not only reaching, they're insulting to the victims and families of the victims. Yeah, I get it, you want to know the truth, but at some point, it becomes a matter of people only accepting what they want to hear. Do the families of those who were killed really need to be reminded of what might've or might not have happened? This kinda crap isn't letting them move on...

[lockmat]

There are actually many family members questioning the official story. You can see a few of them in the Press for Truth documentary. 

 

On to my main point...

 

The only way we know box cutters were used on Flight 93 was because Barbara Olsen, former CNN commentator who was on that flight called her husband Ted Olsen, Solicitor General of the U.S., from a cell phone and told him that. The govt changed their story on her so many times. They even changed it and said she didn't call from her cell, she did it from the seat-back phone. Then 911 truthers found out that the plane didn't have seat-back phones. And then they changed it to say she didn't even talk to her husband. So either the govt is lying, or Ted is lying.

 

Also, there's another cell phone story that's way too complicated to type out, but essentially they tried saying cell phone calls weren't actually used, but a woman who was called by her husband from that flight said it was her husband's cell phone because she saw it on the caller id. There's more to that story, but that's the gist. The govt changed their story to accommodate that, too.

 

The reason they changed their stories in the first place was because it was impossible for cell phones to work at the altitude they said they were made at.

 

Here's a snippet of David Griffin explaining it much better and thoroughly than I did. If you want good 9/11 truth movement info, he seems to be the best resource.

 

[Montrose1100]

I'm pretty sure it's obvious to most people that oil was the motivating factor behind the War on Terror, but these 9/11 pseudo-conspiracies are not only reaching, they're insulting to the victims and families of the victims. Yeah, I get it, you want to know the truth, but at some point, it becomes a matter of people only accepting what they want to hear. Do the families of those who were killed really need to be reminded of what might've or might not have happened? This kinda crap isn't letting them move on...

Big where's the source on oil? If we had taken control of any middle eastern oil, Houston would have boomed since 2003.

[lockmat]

Over 500 NYFD firemen were open endedly asked to give their account of what happened on 9/11. 

 

118 of them reported hearing explosives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

[lockmat]

Over 500 NYFD firemen were open endedly asked to give their account of what happened on 9/11. 

 

118 of them reported hearing explosives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

 

Osama Bin Laden was not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks.

 

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

[IronTiger]

Over 500 NYFD firemen were open endedly asked to give their account of what happened on 9/11. 

 

118 of them reported hearing explosives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

That doesn't "prove" anything. Nothing the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before and certainly not to the firefighters (not around, when, say Pearl Harbor happened) and it would make sense that some of them thought they heard explosives. I believe that there is some stuff the government's not telling us, but not anything particularly juicy (side note: about 5,000,000 pages of documents related to the Kennedy assassination are available, many electronically, and yet there's STILL all sorts of talk about it) that will change everything that we thought we knew about 9/11. If there was a conspiracy, any talking head that claims there's an inconsistency (like people shown in the links above), they'd be locked up, like Manning or (in theory) Snowden, and neither of them had anything about 9/11. Furthermore, during the 9/11 cleanup, if there was controlled explosives in WTC7, they would've probably found evidence, not to mention any reports of workers in WTC7 noticing crews doing some "rewiring", or something like that.

For every question raised about 9/11, there's more questions raised back, really.

[lockmat]

That doesn't "prove" anything. Nothing the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before and certainly not to the firefighters (not around, when, say Pearl Harbor happened) and it would make sense that some of them thought they heard explosives. I believe that there is some stuff the government's not telling us, but not anything particularly juicy (side note: about 5,000,000 pages of documents related to the Kennedy assassination are available, many electronically, and yet there's STILL all sorts of talk about it) that will change everything that we thought we knew about 9/11. If there was a conspiracy, any talking head that claims there's an inconsistency (like people shown in the links above), they'd be locked up, like Manning or (in theory) Snowden, and neither of them had anything about 9/11. Furthermore, during the 9/11 cleanup, if there was controlled explosives in WTC7, they would've probably found evidence, not to mention any reports of workers in WTC7 noticing crews doing some "rewiring", or something like that.

For every question raised about 9/11, there's more questions raised back, really.

 

What you're suggesting are assumptions. I'm simply providing facts. I'm not saying the firemen's testimonies are absolute truth explosives were used to bring down the buildings. It's just supporting evidence from credible sources. There are non-rescue personnel who also heard explosions, too.

 

And there actually is evidence explosives were used. When I get time I'll provide it.

 

Here is just a sample of explosions heard.

[IronTiger]

What you're suggesting are assumptions. I'm simply providing facts.

Are you kidding me? Admittedly, the whole "well, they must have been mistaken" is kind of an assumption, but a 9/11 doubter shouldn't be lecturing others on assumptions, since 9/11 theories rely on a lot of guesswork. Also, "explosions" and "explosives" are not the same thing, but I'm going to assume you're not stupid and actually already know that.

[lockmat]

Are you kidding me? Admittedly, the whole "well, they must have been mistaken" is kind of an assumption, but a 9/11 doubter shouldn't be lecturing others on assumptions, since 9/11 theories rely on a lot of guesswork. Also, "explosions" and "explosives" are not the same thing, but I'm going to assume you're not stupid and actually already know that.

Forgive me if my statement came across cold, that was not my intention. I was simply stating the situation.

To elaborate, suggesting talking heads would be locked up for speaking out or eyewitnesses seeing people wire up a building is not factual.

The majority of what I have been reporting are simply facts. I've speculated with caution when people have asked "why" and for the most part I believe those were my only non-factual statements. Reports of firemen hearing explosions is fact. Videos of sounds of explosions and the FBI not naming 9/11 as one of his crimes are too.

These are simply evidences to connect the dots. And it's only a fraction of the available facts.

Also, it is possible to set off explosives wirelessly. And there is evidence of thermite. Evidence that there was something that made the fire hotter than an office fire or jet fuel could have made it.

I'm simply trying to share factual evidence for all to see. There are way too many to share in a few posts and they get somewhat complicated too. David Ray Griffin is probably the best source on YouTube, but most people don't have the time or want to take the time to investigate it in depth.

[samagon]

So now that I have had my question of motivation unsatisfactorily answered 

 

I think the real crux of the discussion is around the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.

 

I'm going to skip around a little, but before I really jump in, I do think that some of the gifs I've seen on imgur and other places for this meme are brilliant.

 

Wood generally burns at a certain temperature, aluminum doesn't melt anywhere near that temperature, however, toss an aluminum can into a wood fire, and watch it become brittle and weak, crumbling with a gentle tap from a twig (trust me, I was a boy scout and did extensive investigation into this phenomenon. Of course, at the time I didn't know what the temp of the fire was, or the temp that aluminum melted at.

 

I also learned during summer camp that there are 3 things necessary for fire. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. If you only have two of these, you don't have fire. One peculiar thing about fire is, if you add oxygen the fuel will be consumed quicker, and the fire will be hotter. Think of the ren fair, when you go to the blacksmith, there's some poor soul working something called the 'bellows' what he's doing is injecting oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature.

 

I finally learned, when I spent time learning how to work on cars, and eventually doing some shade tree make cars go faster stuff, that there's this thing called stoichiometry, for all types of fuel. what it is is, the optimum ratio of oxygen and fuel to burn completely. for gasoline, this ratio is 14.7:1, 14.7 parts air to 1 part gasoline. Now, the interesting thing is, you can adjust this ratio and change the way that things perform, the speed with which all of the fuel burns, the temperature at which it burns, etc. So the amount of air and fuel mixed together is very important to keeping things from going bad, real bad. 

 

Now, I know wikipedia states that jet fuel burns at a specific temperature, but I'm here to tell you, jet fuel burns at a specific temperature in a specific environment, that environment being the confines of a jet engine where the amount of oxygen, jet fuel and heat are regulated constantly by sensors that are monitoring, injectors that are metering fuel, and actuators that are adjusting the amount of air let into the engine, etc.

 

Take that jet fuel out of that environment and you can do whatever you want with it. If anyone is in the Houston area and wants to conduct an experiment, I'm down, you'll need to provide the jet fuel and a flir camera (to record the temps) and a safe place to play conduct the experiment. Basically, we'll take some stuff that would be in an office, particle board furniture, drywall, plastic, carpet and other stuff. soak it all in jet fuel and let it burn. then we'll do the same thing only blowing air into the fire. record the results with the flir camera from both. if we're lucky, we can even cook some burgers and brats. 

 

I'm here to tell you though, the results will be thus:

 

1. burning crap with no oxygen injected will burn, but it won't be as hot as wikipedia says that jet fuel will be when it burns

2. once we start blowing on it, it will burn fast and hot, if we can get enough air into it, it will burn hotter than wikipedia says that jet fuel will burn at.

3. the burgers will taste like crap, and probably give us cancer if we cook them over our experiment fire

 

I'm so confident in this, I'm willing to pay for the burgers myself if all 3 of these results aren't spot on.

 

I'm actually surprised that Myth Busters hasn't done an episode on this yet (or maybe I just haven't seen it).

[lockmat]

So now that I have had my question of motivation unsatisfactorily answered 

 

I think the real crux of the discussion is around the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.

 

I'm going to skip around a little, but before I really jump in, I do think that some of the gifs I've seen on imgur and other places for this meme are brilliant.

 

Wood generally burns at a certain temperature, aluminum doesn't melt anywhere near that temperature, however, toss an aluminum can into a wood fire, and watch it become brittle and weak, crumbling with a gentle tap from a twig (trust me, I was a boy scout and did extensive investigation into this phenomenon. Of course, at the time I didn't know what the temp of the fire was, or the temp that aluminum melted at.

 

I also learned during summer camp that there are 3 things necessary for fire. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. If you only have two of these, you don't have fire. One peculiar thing about fire is, if you add oxygen the fuel will be consumed quicker, and the fire will be hotter. Think of the ren fair, when you go to the blacksmith, there's some poor soul working something called the 'bellows' what he's doing is injecting oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature.

 

I finally learned, when I spent time learning how to work on cars, and eventually doing some shade tree make cars go faster stuff, that there's this thing called stoichiometry, for all types of fuel. what it is is, the optimum ratio of oxygen and fuel to burn completely. for gasoline, this ratio is 14.7:1, 14.7 parts air to 1 part gasoline. Now, the interesting thing is, you can adjust this ratio and change the way that things perform, the speed with which all of the fuel burns, the temperature at which it burns, etc. So the amount of air and fuel mixed together is very important to keeping things from going bad, real bad. 

 

Now, I know wikipedia states that jet fuel burns at a specific temperature, but I'm here to tell you, jet fuel burns at a specific temperature in a specific environment, that environment being the confines of a jet engine where the amount of oxygen, jet fuel and heat are regulated constantly by sensors that are monitoring, injectors that are metering fuel, and actuators that are adjusting the amount of air let into the engine, etc.

 

Take that jet fuel out of that environment and you can do whatever you want with it. If anyone is in the Houston area and wants to conduct an experiment, I'm down, you'll need to provide the jet fuel and a flir camera (to record the temps) and a safe place to play conduct the experiment. Basically, we'll take some stuff that would be in an office, particle board furniture, drywall, plastic, carpet and other stuff. soak it all in jet fuel and let it burn. then we'll do the same thing only blowing air into the fire. record the results with the flir camera from both. if we're lucky, we can even cook some burgers and brats. 

 

I'm here to tell you though, the results will be thus:

 

1. burning crap with no oxygen injected will burn, but it won't be as hot as wikipedia says that jet fuel will be when it burns

2. once we start blowing on it, it will burn fast and hot, if we can get enough air into it, it will burn hotter than wikipedia says that jet fuel will burn at.

3. the burgers will taste like crap, and probably give us cancer if we cook them over our experiment fire

 

I'm so confident in this, I'm willing to pay for the burgers myself if all 3 of these results aren't spot on.

 

I'm actually surprised that Myth Busters hasn't done an episode on this yet (or maybe I just haven't seen it).

 

My logical compass must be off on this because it seems like your conclusion supports the case that jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to burn the steel of the building. Especially since the office area would have mostly been starved of oxygen. Maybe I need more 'splaining.

 

Onto some other evidence.

 

The terrorist who was said to fly into the pentagon has had some very interesting information reported about him. There is ample evidence he was, at best, an average pilot. Most accounts say he was not. Yet, the maneuver he supposedly did to turn into and eventually hit the pentagon was something only an excellent pilot could have pulled off, admitted by pilots, experts and military personnel. It just doesn't seem plausible that he was capable of pulling this maneuver since he was, bluntly, a bad pilot.

 

For a timeline of evidence of his skills and what those had to say about the maneuver he had to pull off to hit the pentagon, read the account provided at the link below. The forum post that gives the description was to show that the "screw loose change" arguments (in red text) against the documentary "loose change" did not truly "debunk" the documentary as it had proposed.

 

Be prepared to have your socks knocked off:

 

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550

[lockmat]

My apologies, I had to delete the map because I found it to be outdated, although from what I understand so far it was still a loop that was made, just not that exact route. The other comment I deleted was associated with it. The comment left is still legitimate and verifiable.

 

 

Dulles Air Traffic Controllers thought it was a military plane.

[BigFootsSocks]

So far all I've seen from you are "he-said she-said" from all of this supposed "professional accounts"

Im beginning to see get that you will back up any loosely based piece of "evidence" in order to prove your supremely minority opinion.

Believ what you want man, but you can't get mad when I say this is the stupidest fvking thread on this forum.

[samagon]

My logical compass must be off on this because it seems like your conclusion supports the case that jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to burn the steel of the building. Especially since the office area would have mostly been starved of oxygen. Maybe I need more 'splaining.

 

exactly the opposite, there would be ample oxygen hitting the flames. look at pictures of the towers, the smoke was nearly horizontal, which would indicate a lot of wind blowing, which would indicate a lot of oxygen was being cycled into those buildings through the gaping holes.

[IronTiger]

exactly the opposite, there would be ample oxygen hitting the flames. look at pictures of the towers, the smoke was nearly horizontal, which would indicate a lot of wind blowing, which would indicate a lot of oxygen was being cycled into those buildings through the gaping holes.

Yeah. If you were INSIDE the towers when the fires began, you might have died from lack of oxygen before being burned alive, but since everyone above perished and their bodies burned in the ensuing catastrophe, that's just a hypothesis. However, other fires have shown that to be the case (dying before burning).

For the fire itself, though, it did suck air out of the atmosphere to continue burning. The whole "oxygen/fuel/heat" triangle is the same reason a candle burns on a wick continually but stop once you put the lid back on (or put glass over it), or why it's best to leave the door closed when something in the toaster oven catches fire. Or why house fires will continue to burn until it gets put out by the fire department (or until the house reaches the foundation, that's when "fuel" disappears). This is another reason why the fires at 9/11 were more than any other tall building fire, there's a huge gaping hole for oxygen to be sucked into and make the fire even bigger. I know that doesn't answer a whole lot of questions for WTC7, but that at least is the physics behind the Twin Towers.