Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

a reply to: Salander

Then quote the article where such a claim is made?

Is this an exercise in your comprehension skills?

WMD's post on 24 October at 0638

This is a demonstration of YOUR comprehension skills, long known by readers of your posts.

B-25's use piston engines and burn avgas. That factoid slipped by WMD's and your comprehension.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: oldcarpy

Thank you sir. The simple truth is that neither of us can prove our claims.

But when it comes to evidence, you who support the official story have no evidence to support it. Even the government's own commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that story.

I on the other hand, have ample evidence that the official story cannot be true. Mainly the laws of physics and the absence of an airliner at the pentagon and in the countryside in Pennsylvania. Not to mention the facts discovered by many private investigators like Christopher Bollyn.

Of course the testimony of William Rodriguez is also evidence regarding the failure of the narrative you defend.

You are the one who challenges the "official story" ie what we all saw live on tv and what actual witnesses saw.
That means it is up to you to challenge all that with credible evidence.
I have not seen you getting anywhere close to doing that yet.
Ill keep an open mind.
Do present some actual evidence and ill consider it.
So far i have seen nothing.
Do you have anything?
Anything at all?
Kindest regards.
OC.

originally posted by: Salander
WMD's post on 24 October at 0638

This is a demonstration of YOUR comprehension skills, long known by readers of your posts.

B-25's use piston engines and burn avgas. That factoid slipped by WMD's and your comprehension.

Then you cannot quote from the article where it makes such a claim?

So your making a false accusation?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Thank you for your civil response.

I'm sure you know that the human mind can be easily fooled. That's what magicians do with cards and rabbits in hats--deceive the audience, tricking it into believing something that ain't so.

And of course the philosopher Kierkegaard noted that there are two ways for us humans to be fooled. One is to believe in something that is false, and the other is to refuse to believe what is true.

Facts that you are not aware of show that the aircraft that struck the towers were not the aircraft said to have struck them in the official story. So that alone makes the official story false.

There is more. Facts that you are not aware of show that UA93 was still in the air somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the official story says it crashed.

The story is such a joke that in August 2004, after the 911 Commission Report was issued, Senator Mark Thornton said in public that NORAD lied in its testimony to the Commission.

There's lots more, and I wonder if you're interested in informing yourself about those contradictory facts?

a reply to: Salander

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Then quote the article where such a claim is made?

Is this an exercise in your comprehension skills?

Or did you just make a false accusation?

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm an independent thinker. Apparently you are not.

a reply to: Salander

You said this?

a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

I asked this: “ a reply to: Salander

Then quote the article where such a claim is made?

Is this an exercise in your comprehension skills?“

You replied this?

WMD's post on 24 October at 0638

This is a demonstration of YOUR comprehension skills, long known by readers of your posts.

B-25's use piston engines and burn avgas. That factoid slipped by WMD's and your comprehension.

I posted this: “

Then you cannot quote from the article where it makes such a claim?

So your making a false accusation?”

This is where fuel is used in the cited source?

www.aerospaceweb.org...

B-25 Empire State Building Collision

Snip

The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building.

Snip

As flaming fuel and wreckage showered down, however, spectators fled the area to find cover under nearby buildings.

Snip

As they passed the 70th floor, the men began encountering pools of fuel and oil, scorched walls, and wafting smoke.

Snip

The death toll might also have been much higher had the B-25 been carrying a bomb load and more fuel since a heavier plane would have done considerably more structural damage.

Snip

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

Snip

A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks.

Snip

Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

Now. Please quote where “ B-25 Empire State Building Collision” stated a B-25 carries jet fuel. Right from the article, “ The B-25 burned avgas“

So, how does you statement of:

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

have any merit?

a reply to: Salander

You

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard.

Seems this has turned into an exercise in your own credibility.

Now quote from the article where it claims the B-25 uses jet fuel?

Again....
Now. Please quote where “ B-25 Empire State Building Collision” stated a B-25 carries jet fuel. Right from the article, “ The B-25 burned avgas“

B-25 Empire State Building Collision
www.aerospaceweb.org...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

Well that's weird. At no point does the article state that the B-25 had jet fuel aboard and yet here you are claiming that others have zero credibility

You might just manage to salvage a little of your credibility if you have the testicular fortitude to admit you made a mistake

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

Well that's weird. At no point does the article state that the B-25 had jet fuel aboard and yet here you are claiming that others have zero credibility

You might just manage to salvage a little of your credibility if you have the testicular fortitude to admit you made a mistake

The article does however say the following:

The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline

a reply to: mrthumpy

From the building's point of view it really doesn't matter which type of aviation fuel is applied and ignited. The outcome is the same (fire).

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Full context

At the last moment, Lt. Col. Smith must have seen the profile of the Empire State Building looming out of the fog. He tried to pull up while banking away, but the distance was too short and the bomber's velocity too great. At approximately 9:49 AM, the B-25 plunged into the 78th and 79th floors of the skyscraper some 975 ft (295 m) above ground level. The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) making the building shake under the force of the collision. The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building. Sheets of flame also raced through the maze of hallways and stairwells inside the building, reaching at least as far down as the 75th floor.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: mrthumpy

From the building's point of view it really doesn't matter which type of aviation fuel is applied and ignited. The outcome is the same (fire).

If you believe the official story then you denying Newton laws of gravity. Gravity requires vertical motion. Objects move in the direction of the force. The official story wrong. The towers did not come down to gravity. For objects to be thrown horizontally- that involves a separate energy ie explosives or a chemical reaction inside the towers caused it.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: mrthumpy

From the building's point of view it really doesn't matter which type of aviation fuel is applied and ignited. The outcome is the same (fire).

If you believe the official story then you denying Newton laws of gravity. Gravity requires vertical motion. Objects move in the direction of the force. The official story wrong. The towers did not come down to gravity. For objects to be thrown horizontally- that involves a separate energy ie explosives or a chemical reaction inside the towers caused it.

The vertical columns were not exploded out. They tumbled out.



There is no evidence and audio of explosions that hauled pieces of the build.

a reply to: neutronflux

Ah, but people on interweb tell me it was cgi/holograms/Mossad/ mini nukes and whatnot. Its all on Youtube so must be true.

Who needs actual evidence or common sense when gullible people believe this BS?

So sad.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Might read through the threads...

This game has been played before.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Oh My Goodness! Out of all the silly posts you have offered here, this one takes the cake.

Those pieces were pushed out by collapsing floors? ROFLMAO

Desperate is as desperate does.

You going to talk about actual Evidence? Or just have a conniption fit?

Again... the actual whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Kwahakev tried this game and posted this picture.

originally posted by: kwakakev

So far, you haven’t even provide any evidence concerning cut steel columns.

If you are not going to be serious about this i am not going to help you with your silly games.

One. If explosives hurled this massive piece of building, the explosion wound have been massive. The resultant pressure wave would have been obvious, and ruptured eardrums throughout manhattan. There is still intact windows in the building part of the WTC fell into. The pressure waves from explosions hurling ton pieces of building would have completely knocked out windows.

Two. The piece contains broken welds, with no indication of being worked by cutting charges.

Three, why would cutting charges hurl large pieces of building?

Four, the pieces are explained by the tumbling action of the structural steel.


originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If explosives did not hurl those pieces NF, then what did?

What proof do you have that explosives hurled pieces vs being pushed out by collapsing floors? And the toppling of large vertical columns?

This is what happens when there is actual shrapnel from actual explosives with no care in properly trapping demolitions shrapnel.

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997
m.youtube.com...

The sound of explosions is clearly heard above the collapse of the building and echos about.

The steel fragment that instantly killed Katie was ejected 430 meters from what looks like an eight story building. How many meters was the steel fragment ejected out vs how tall the building was?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: neutronflux

Ah, but people on interweb tell me it was cgi/holograms/Mossad/ mini nukes and whatnot. Its all on Youtube so must be true.

Who needs actual evidence or common sense when gullible people believe this BS?

So sad.

Never let truth, science, Newton, aerodynamics, math, thermodynamics, satellites, curved earth, video, audio get in the way of a conspiracy fantasy

a reply to: mrthumpy

I read it twice just to make sure. It said jetfuel. But that doesn't really matter because we're analyzing propaganda.

The B-25 crash proved nothing, a comparison between apples and oranges.

Drone aircraft hit the towers.