It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 18
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
implosion world forum, maybe?

something to watch. probably more shillery, seeing as there is a claim of first hand knowledge of the clean-up. that would make them co-conspirators by default.

look at the bright side. they said they could do the study that satisfies the million dollar challenge for a mere hundred grand. why did nist need twenty million to come up with a theory that ignores the majority of the building, and ignored the mechanics of the collapse, satisfied that, 'once global collapse was initiated, blah blah...', where these guys think a hundred thousand is enough?




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Agent Smith, I asked the company what different ways they could destroy a building. That's national security? Give me a break, dude. I think I'll stay here at ATS.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Agent Smith, I asked the company what different ways they could destroy a building. That's national security? Give me a break, dude. I think I'll stay here at ATS.


Emmmm.... Common sense failing once again... It's because of attitudes like that things like 9/11 happened... OK you can't see why they might withhold any information from those that don't really need to know? You can't understand why someone may be suspicious of someone ringing up asking odd questions for no apparant reason?
Well I hope your not responsible for anything useful.... Guess who just failed their vigilance test...

Hands up who else can see what the mistake is here...


[edit on 19-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Why does national security require us to be ignorant? How does "vigilance" require us to be ignorant? How do you think you can properly function as a citizen, and proper address these kinds of issues, when they won't even offer you relevant information?

You sure are damned confident of purity within my government, especially for someone who pretends to concern himself with "vigilance." Vigilance doesn't mean don't ask questions. Vigilance means DO ask them, every chance you get. Know exactly what is going on with your government. Be as intelligent on their doings as you can allow themselves. Educate yourself. Don't take anything for granted, least of all a freaking government. But no, you say? I have to just keep my mouth shut? I can't expect to be told things, to learn, because it's an interest to "national security"?

Well damn straight it is, but it's not a threat to my security. It's a threat to my security to be ignorant. It's a threat to their security that I know things that you even say maybe I shouldn't need to. And you even mimick them on this, apparently. I don't need to know certain things because it's a threat to security. But again, whose? Ignorance is never, ever a virtue in my book.

Maybe you've just forgotten that corruption not only exists, but raises its ugly head again and again and again and again throughout history. Is this because people ask too many questions?

...No!
That is insanely backwards. Corruption is allowed through ignorance of the citizenry. That is common sense failing, and you often seem to take great pride in this wallowing in ignorance when it comes to 9/11. I say this not as an attack, but as your track record, so to speak, of posting on these issues. Anyone can look around to varify the following to prove this: I tried addressing you I don't know how many times on how exactly you think the towers fell (first on the Pentagon thread, then a couple times on the Steven Jones thread in the news section). Those posts, you never responded to. I think I referred to them at least three times for you, maybe four. I don't think you missed the posts. You quote the pancake theory, which isn't even taken seriously anymore, explaining that the reason the towers continue to fell after a disappearance of a driving weight was because of bolt failure. So then I ask: if not weight, then what in green hell caused the bolts to sheer? And this is where you stop responding, despite three or four references to the very same postings!

Of course, I've also noticed that you often cite not having enough time to properly devote time to the research of certain phenomena, and thus cannot comment. You'll admit to this, I'm sure, because you know I could easily go and drudge up the posts in question. And yet you totally dismiss all of the conspiracy claims, and totally embrace so many official words, or at least when you are not being pressed too hard to back yourself up. And now here, you say of course the demolition company shouldn't tell me what they can or can't do, because I don't need to know! Wallowing in ignorance around these parts of ATS! And again, this is not meant as insults: I have even provided references to the kind of things I'm talking about!

Your kind of "vigilance" is the kind that keeps ruling parties in power: don't think. Don't question. Don't even think you need to know: You don't. Everything they say is right. Why? Because history doesn't repeat itself? No, history repeats itself. But nothing that bad can happen today, because today is so much different than the time of Nero or Hitler or whoever else. The really bad things don't repeat themselves anymore. That's your thought on it, isn't it? Can't happen today; we're all too good for our own good. We don't even need to think or question anymore, for Christ's sake! We can afford to be stupid, as long as the terrorists are stupid too. Then we're all safe.

As I said, ignorance is never a virtue for me. And I'm certainly not going to take anyone's word on ignorance being a good thing, in any matter whatsoever. Ignorance is what led to 9/11. Not a lack of it. Anything but a lack of ignorance.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
What most of you forget is that the steel used to create and support buildings in the U.S. must be sprayed with fire resistant chemicals before being added.

Also forgetting that JP-8 and JP-4 both are highly explosive (can cause sunburn if worked with too long).

Both planes where going around 400-500 MPH.

Also know that it wouls take a ****load of C-4 to take down any high-rise.

And Having personally seen the whole on the Penatgon, I can with way more certainty say that a Boeing 767 hit the WTC and Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
What most of you forget is that the steel used to create and support buildings in the U.S. must be sprayed with fire resistant chemicals before being added.


And what you forget is that steel can stand up to temperatures perfectly well on its own up until a certain point. Steel is naturally resistant to heat, regardless of additional fireproofing. That's really just an additional step that's taken. On 9/11, what raging fires did you see that heated the steel for any amount of time beyond 600 degrees Celsius? What glowing of steel did you see, save the molten ends dragged up from the long-smoldering rubble pile stinking (figuratively) of thermite? Really, if there was any, I'd certainly like to hear about it by now. It's about damned time, some years after 9/11, to finally see some steel glowing from intense heat from the fires.


Both planes where going around 400-500 MPH.


Yeah, and neither tower sustained more than 15% perimeter column failure in the regions of impact, nor much more than 2 knocked out core columns if you assume both engines of both planes flew in the right directions and remained intact enough, long enough, to knock a couple of those out per tower as well. With an average of 75% redundancy as per NIST's own figures, that's quite a ways to go before getting a single floor to fail, let alone a whole building. Those fires certainly had their work cut out for them, huh?

And so where is the glowing steel, again? You know, that bright red glow that comes from 600°C steel? Sounds like something doesn't add up.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Almost any structure fire can reach temperatures in excess of 600 C.

bsbray, you are in your own little world again.




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Perhaps Mr Bray, you would like to now devise a system to differentiate between people wanting to deny ignorance and terrorists attempting to gather information?
As this is a big problem for all of us I'm pretty sure it will make you a rich man.
I still find it astounding why you can't see a demolition company would be cautious about witholding information from someone ringing up out of the blue asking strange question like 'how many different ways can you destroy up a building' - without actually having one to demolish.

I also fail to understand how you can make a direct connection to the government when the company is more than likely taking precautions off their own back. I have to do it myself in life sometimes and it's good to see them being responsible - better to be over-cautious than end up on the News in the future saying "Well I did think it was funny they wanted to know at the time.....".

As to the fires, the computer simulation shows sustained fires of 1000 deg C in large areas of the building, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about.

How come this miracle Thermite enables things to stay hot so long anyway? The reaction is over in seconds and if it's not possible for the metal to retain heat through fire then why is it possible for it to retain heat from a different method of heating?

As for the pancake collapse, apparantly 80% of the debris fell outside of the footprint. It was the top ten stories which started falling wasn't it? Which is about 10%. 20% Would be about twice that, so about 20 storeys worth ( 1 fifth of the building) - still more than enough to crush the building once it gained momentum. I still find it amusing how you say it's impossible, you must have visions of the top simply coming to rest or falling off for some reason - so as well as developing a new system to differentiate between ignorance deniers and terrorists - you can also tell us about your super-strength metal that your bolts and beams are made from.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

As to the fires, the computer simulation shows sustained fires of 1000 deg C in large areas of the building, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about.

How come this miracle Thermite enables things to stay hot so long anyway? The reaction is over in seconds and if it's not possible for the metal to retain heat through fire then why is it possible for it to retain heat from a different method of heating?

[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


oh, agent smith.

you're so silly.

if you cook something in your cast iron frying pan, does it cool instantly?
if you use a stainless steel pan, does it cool at the same rate?
if steel in a molten state is found weeks later underneath rubble leftover by a gravity driven collapse, then why shouldn't we be looking for sources of extreme heat? (which doesn't mean temperature, btw)



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Thank you for clarifying my point Billybob - the point is that the steel won't cool instantly regardless of the source. As for it being molten - it has never been properly confirmed that this is even true and some people have even debunked it. There are not even any photographs.
I can't see how it would sustain it's high temperature without a consistant heat source for the alledged periods of time. We know there were fires buried under ground, but I can't see how the thermite would sustain it's high temperature over weeks once the short reaction was over. Obviously it would keep it for a few days I imagine, just not weeks!
The only thing that even vaguely implies thermite was used would be the alleged pools of molten steel which are not confirmed and some have debunked.
I've been trying to find some figures on how long it takes for steel to cool at room temperature to no avail, but this information would be useful.
The fact there were hot spots just means that some areas retained heat for long periods of time and/or that there were numerous underground fires which would be expected. It does not mean that thermite was used.

A lot of the reports are by people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference between steel and aluminium anyway, just because some people may be telling the truth does not mean all the alleged reports are true. I think it's highly likely that at least some of the reports are in fact molten aluminium which would be easily explained.

You have to excuse me for not being clearer, as I have only just got up.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Personally I can see the fires that were burning under the rubble reaching and sustaining high temperatures for a good length of time. There was a tremendous amount of combustible material buried in the rubble. Paper, wood, plastic carpeting, asphalt based floor tiles, upholstery, cubicles, computer cases, unburned jet fuel, gasoline from the cars in the underground garage, etc.

Underground coal fires have been known to burn for decades, even centuries.

The rubble pile would have been a good insulator, trapping the heat in, and the voids would have provided plenty of oxygen. In addition, it is entirely possible that there other sources of fuel and oxygen. During the clean up, crews recovered a number of welding bottles from the basement areas where they had been stored. It is possible that some of them leaked or were damaged and emptied by the force of the collapse.

Finally, the kinetic energy of the collapse itself would have been translated into a fair amount of heat, just through mechanical motion and piezokinetic breakage.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

,,,
Finally, the kinetic energy of the collapse itself would have been translated into a fair amount of heat, just through mechanical motion and piezokinetic breakage.



you're grasping for straws here, obviously, sure, an oxygen deprived fire going for weeks creating absurd temp readings (and whatnot according to witnesses..) and white haze (presumably steam), sure that doesn't sound convincing, does it?

now, adding the word piezokinetic (umm, k?) and claiming that collapsing buildings generate huge amounts of heat will certainly help... NOT!

you can't be serious

do you think we're all on happy pills? btw, i thought most of your KE was expended pulverising all the concrete...



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Like I said, the fire wasn’t oxygen deprived. There was plenty of air in the voids.

Underground coal fires have MUCH less oxygen available, yet they burn at extremely high temperatures (temps as high as 1700 F have been reported) for many many years.

Common, ordinary structure fires can easily reach temperatures in excess of 1000 F.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Don't forget the air coming in through the subway tunnels under the site will have provided plenty of ventilation from underneath.
I guess it's bit like a coal burner in your house, I remember getting mine so hot one day that it actually melted the metal chimney tube that comes out the back to the point it was deformed and sagging (while glowing yellow) and the top was glowing red hot! Just within an hour or two.
Imagining the heat rising from the pile causing a draft sucking fresh air in through the subway into the vast basement area isn't really that difficult to see.







[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Almost any structure fire can reach temperatures in excess of 600 C.

bsbray, you are in your own little world again.




Originally posted by AgentSmith
As to the fires, the computer simulation shows sustained fires of 1000 deg C in large areas of the building, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about.


The neither of you can read. I said steel heated beyond 600 degrees, not fires beyond 600 degrees.

Plus, this for you, Smith:


It was the top ten stories which started falling wasn't it? Which is about 10%. 20% Would be about twice that, so about 20 storeys worth ( 1 fifth of the building) - still more than enough to crush the building once it gained momentum.


Omg, thank you: you have finally proven gravity. Well done. The weight was more than enough. We have your word. Case closed.

I do not trust NIST. Unless their simulations are finally, and for one, indepedently confirmed as any real science should be, then I might trust the info in question.

And this for you, Howard:




Also in addition, since I was pressed for time earlier,


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Perhaps Mr Bray, you would like to now devise a system to differentiate between people wanting to deny ignorance and terrorists attempting to gather information?
As this is a big problem for all of us I'm pretty sure it will make you a rich man.
I still find it astounding why you can't see a demolition company would be cautious about witholding information from someone ringing up out of the blue asking strange question like 'how many different ways can you destroy up a building' - without actually having one to demolish.


Here's your system:

Worry about "national security" when one starts looking into explosives and/or WMDs or anything else that's actually a threat.

I still find it astounding that you fail to realize how little anyone could do with the information for which I asked. I asked if it would be possible for them to blow up a building unconventionally, setting off charges in any order they want. I was also asking how safe these other methods were, and if they were legal. Those questions go hand in hand, and no doubt a terrorist trying to blow up a building isn't worried about keeping it clean or limiting causalties. Nor would a terrorist be worried about legality. But those questions don't count - I could just be asking them to disguise my real purpose, evidenced by my main question...

Actually, when it comes to the main question, of if unconventional demolitions are possible, that is a truly significant piece of information. I see your point now, Smith. Why, if one only knew if unconventional charge initiations were possible, why, he's practically already blown up a building! The rest of the work is nothing compared to finding out whether or not charges can be set off in whatever order, even when the very site in question shows videos proving its possibility. All the buying all the necessary equipment and explosives, and doing all the planning and figures (and of course let's not forget that every terrorist wants his demolition to be as safe as legal as possible), all of that would be easy peasy compared to the great challenge of inquiring as to how charges could potentially be set off - a huge concern of national security.

I guess maybe the gov should watch out for Arabs studying demolition engineering now. Especially ones that blow themselves up in the demolition, only to reappar from the dead as if they had never died in the first place. But, wait, no... they wouldn't have to study demolition. They'd only have to figure out if charges could be set off at different times. That's really the only required knowledge. And of course how legal different methods are and all of that. Then they're set.

Omg - wait - do you guys remember chemistry!? A lot of the science of chemistry demonstrates how to make certain explosives or deadly gases! This branch of science needs to be censored immediately for our security. I've been so blind, Smith. I never thought that ignorance could be so safe.

Or... damn. They teach people about firearms don't they? Imagine all the people that die every year from knowing too much about firearms. Like little kids that know what the trigger does, or knowing to check to see if it's loaded, and kill themselves on purpose because of their vast knowledge. Same principle. We need to censor that too, for national security. Of course they've banned most firearms in Britain, right? Now that's freedom. You're really ahead of us on that one. Eventually, everything should be banned, from knives and scissors to nails. No one needs to know how any of those things work - they could use that knowledge to harm us.


Let's just start a big book-burning. Everything but clean, happy fiction and history books. And let's censor the history books so that all the bad stuff is taken out of them, too, like how we "Americans" slaughtered so many Native Americans. To this day, I really can't tell you much about that. Probably national security. I don't want to get ideas. I shouldn't even know about the native genocides - like that they ever happened. That'd be best. Thank goodness for all of the things I don't know anything about!


The only thing that even vaguely implies thermite was used would be the alleged pools of molten steel which are not confirmed and some have debunked.


How in the world do you debunk something like the witness reports of molten steel? With another witness? Seriously. Think about what you just said. There's either evidence for/against it or no evidence at all. Real science is objective, so where's the proof that there was no molten steel? Where's the proof that people didn't know what they were talking about? Where's the debunking?



I further have no reason to doubt the witnesses, unless you think they were on some psycho lie-spreading conspiracy from the start, to make it look like the government did it. Maybe they were terrorists, too.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Personally I can see the fires that were burning under the rubble reaching and sustaining high temperatures for a good length of time.


Howard, you know the point is not ultimately whether or not a fire could burn under all that rubble.

The issue is whether there was anything under that rubble that should have been hot enough to melt steel six weeks and beyond after the WTC Towers collapsed. But great job on trying to distract from the point by offering a straw man.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
well, agent smith, i don't think i was making the same point you got.
my point is that if a metal is slow to take on heat, it is also slow to release it.

melted aluminum would cool much faster than melted steel, for example.
the steel itself had no signifigant source of heat. certainly not enough to create molten pools that last for weeks.
the other signifigant points are that the fires were at the TOP of the building, yet the molten steel(which has been REPEATEDLY confirmed, and NEVER 'debunked'. the clean up crews were MELTING GLASS in it) was found in the sublevels and UNDERNEATH the wreckage. the energy required to INSTANTLY MELT steel is ENORMOUS.

actual measured physical evidence from the fire zones indicates steel temperatures of 600 degrees for fifteen minutes, at the very hottest, and most steel was measured at 250 degrees.

even the 1000 degree temperatures would have been very localised and brief, if they existed at all. still not enough to leave pools of molten STEEL in the sublevels. there is simply NO WAY that steel could have been melted AT ALL.

ESPECIALLY not at tower seven.

the official BAD lie, says the steel was being heated by increasing temperatures, when in fact, the fires were burning out(asymmetrically, of course).

there was a cloud of white smoke that came from the base of the towers just before they fell. thermite leaves white smoke.


They came to ground zero to make a connection, Native American to Native American. They came bearing the scars of another terrorist attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, to seek out those whose tribe had helped create the twin towers of steel and now were removing the beams that had melted into unnatural shapes.




[edit on 20-12-2005 by billybob]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Omg, thank you: you have finally proven gravity. Well done. The weight was more than enough. We have your word. Case closed.


See.... Now was that hard? I bet it wasn't as hard as you thought it would be... well done!



there was a cloud of white smoke that came from the base of the towers just before they fell. thermite leaves white smoke.


Awww.. Don't make me post all those pictures of various fires with white smoke again!

[edit on 20-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by bsbray11
Omg, thank you: you have finally proven gravity. Well done. The weight was more than enough. We have your word. Case closed.


See.... Now was that hard? I bet it wasn't as hard as you thought it would be... well done!


Yeah, I know!

Anything else you want to just go ahead and flatly assert without any evidence? You could be the next NIST!

All this time, I've been wondering: how could the caps crush all those lower floors?

Not just crush, but utterly destroy, into shards of steel and dust.
Not just any lower floors, but many more lower floors than there were in the caps.
Not just many more lower floors, but much heavier lower floors, with thicker columns.
Not just the caps destroying them, for the caps were clearly broken up halfway through the collapses.
And yet no change in collapse speed the whole way down.

The collapses were symmetrical. Floors blew out evenly all the way across.
The collapse speeds never slowed.
The collapses ejected most of the debris outwards.
The collapses ripped straight down the buildings.
Initial angular momentum disappeared.
Again, the collapse speeds didn't slow.


So our BRILLIANT AgentSmith says: "What? What was this small minority? 10%? 20% of the topmost, lightest floors? Bah, that must've been more than enough to crush those towers!" So, yeah. Case closed. Job well done man. Took you long enough to come up with that one, too. You should've thrown it out to start. Simple, doesn't need proof of any sort, and yet makes it sound as though you have some idea as to what you're talking about.

So do you feel better now? Can you try actually arguing a case now, instead of making a bunch of assertions that you don't even try to back up or even reason? It's gotten really sloppy, man. I don't think you even care about the issue. I think you just want to be shown to have been on the right side the whole time, with little other concern. Right? Or else you would at least try to educate yourself on the issue or make reasonable arguments, or offer some sort of support.

So? Do you feel any better now? And if you ever care to look into providing supporting evidence, and find you're on the wrong side of the issue, I doubt anyone's going to shoot you for changing your mind. You're a Brit.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Let's take a look at a blacksmiths forge, for years coal has been used as fuel in the forge for the purpose of making iron plastic enough to rework without damaging the metal..

The melting point of iron is about 1510 °C (2750 °F)
education.jlab.org...

The melting point of steel is 1370 degrees C (2500°F)


Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
education.jlab.org...


The blacksmiths forge over time has been fuelled by fuels such as charcoal, coal and gas.

Charcoal is relatively cool compared to coal or coke and needs little air to reach the required temperature:


I'm only leaving two holes open for this arrowhead project. Charcoal needs very little air supply to reach the high temperatures needed for forging and heat treating. ..............
64.176.180.203...


I wonder if the Jet fuel (a hydrocarbon) burning off will have left anything similar to the coke produced from burning coal (also a hydrocarbon) described below? Is that possible?


When coal was discovered it was found to produce a hotter fire than charcoal. As coal begins to burn, all of the various impurities (tars, oils, sulfur, various trace elements and gases, etc) are burned off, and all that remains is pure carbon. During this process smaller pieces of coal will clump or stick together in larger chunks. The product of this initial burning process was historically called "coal charcoal", but is more commonly known today as coke. This lightweight substance ignites rather easily, and burns hotly - with a forced-air draft it can reach temperatures approaching 4000 degrees Fahrenheit. It was also found that coal charcoal (coke) fires left unattended would die out rather quickly, leaving unconsumed fuel which could be used in subsequent fires. Coke lumps can be glowing on the underside, yet remain relatively cool on the top side. The topmost layer of coke on a forge fire acts as an insulator, holding in the heat from the fire beneath.
www.moosecreekforge.com...


4000 deg F achieved there, more than enough even melting the steel!

Let's also look at how you make wood charcoal:


* The direct method uses heat from the incomplete combustion of the organic matter which is to become charcoal. The rate of combustion is controlled by regulating the amount of oxygen allowed into the burn and is stopped by excluding oxygen before the charcoal itself begins to burn. This is the ages old method used by colliers to make charcoal in a pit, pile (clamp) or, more recently, in metal or masonry chambers (kilns). See the links below for more information.

* The indirect method uses an external heat source to "cook" organic matter contained in a closed but vented airless chamber (retort). This is usually carried out in a metal or masonry chamber (furnace). The indirect method results in a higher yield of high quality charcoal with less smoke and pollutants and requires less skill and attention than the direct method. www.velvitoil.com...


Charcoal burns at 1100 deg C (2012 deg F):



Charcoal burns at the necessary temperature (2012 degrees Fahrenheit / 1100 degrees Centigrade), and was therefore used locally in the smelting of iron from as early as 450BC right up until coke became available in the 18th century.
www.fweb.org.uk...


I wonder what happened to all the clumps of paper, doors and the wooden desks for example?

When you look at the pile of rubble that was at ground zero, with lots of combustable materials, a good air supply from the subway tunnels and a combination of large open spaces and confined ones (ideal for conditions that would make charcoal) - it is not unlike a giant kiln with all the fuels it requires and a good airsupply under a good insulative, protective layer - so I do not think it is strange or unusual that they would have hot spots lasting days or even weeks and this would also easily explain the presence of glowing and even molten metals.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
when you burn a measly bit of jet fuel, you do not get fuel as an exhaust.
that's simple isn't it?

there was no coal, smith, old man. nor were any reports of this amazingly efficient chaos furnace written up. the heat was at it's peak immediately after the towers fell.
and then it began to cool.

so, there was just no time for all that imaginary fuel to get stoked up. there was more importantly, NO SMOKE indicating the burning of fossil fuel.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join