newfie
Well-Known Member
someone flew a jet full of jet fuel into the center of this hotel?
Science on display for the world to see today!
- Thread starter The Other Side
- Start date
someone flew a jet full of jet fuel into the center of this hotel?
newfie
Well-Known Member
it may be the end of trump
newfie
Well-Known Member
yep TOS is jealous of fox news , the only major media not controlled by the liberal boot lickers.
by the way the address downtown hotel was completed in 2008 . its very possible that whatever we learned from the 9.11 towers was used in this hotel.
Last edited:
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
One fact has never changed: If you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy you're an idiot.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That means you believe that those who accept the idea that Al Qaeda and bin Laden "conspired" to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and then carried out those plans are idiots.
newfie
Well-Known Member
I thought his meaning was clear, not sure why you felt you had to go there.
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
By our own government...idiots.
The good ole "JET FUEL" defense...
Maybe you failed science class as you do governmental affairs...
But Commercial aviation fuel is DESIGNED to burn at LESS THAN 1100 degrees when burning. It was created this way in the 70's to SAVE LIVES. No longer were there massive extreme fire balls with temps ranging near 2000 degrees. No more benzine or other highly burning materials mixed into commercial jet fuel unlike military grade jet fuel.
Additionally, the MAJORITY of Jet fuel burned on impact into a flash fire ball, only leaving the office furniture and other office materials to burn.
Now, if you are hoping to be like the rest of the UNinformed fox viewing audience, and want to say next that office furniture burns at temps greater than 2500 degrees, then do yourself a giant favor and DONT.
Look up the melting point of STEEL, especially 3 foot thick steel covered in asbestos and find out how HOT it would have to be to melt steel.
The combination of commercial jet fuel and furniture is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to create that much heat.
Now, FIRE itself has temperature limitations, and this hotel was consumed on one entire side and the floor inbetween burning furniture, carpeting, drywall etc etc and NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL WAS TOUCHED.
On 9/11, building 7 fell completely, straight down at the speed of gravity, without obstruction, without large fires and without an airplane hitting it.
How do you attempt to explain that away?
The first time in engineering history that a box framed 47 story steel building just simply falls to the ground and this hotel with a massive fire from floor to roof doesnt get a scratch on its infrastructure?
Do yourself a favor, take a science class.
TOS.
newfie
Well-Known Member
he knows what you meant. he thought he would get cute with your wording.
Quote:
Conclusion:
"The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Your welcome.
TOS.
Conclusion:
"The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Your welcome.
TOS.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
TOS,
You have no damn clue what you are talking about in regards to jet fuel, burn temp. and the reaction on steel beams.
Here is a pic from ground zero where the main support beams were burned through and clearly this was the result of burning jet fuel that melted them.
And obviously the burning jet fuel was so hot it was turning the metal structure of the Twin Towers into molten streams which lead to its weaken state and ultimately its tragic collapse.
Why do you keep denying the obvious?
You're such a maroon to fall for the conspiracy theory stories about what took place that day!
You have no damn clue what you are talking about in regards to jet fuel, burn temp. and the reaction on steel beams.
Here is a pic from ground zero where the main support beams were burned through and clearly this was the result of burning jet fuel that melted them.
And obviously the burning jet fuel was so hot it was turning the metal structure of the Twin Towers into molten streams which lead to its weaken state and ultimately its tragic collapse.
Why do you keep denying the obvious?
You're such a maroon to fall for the conspiracy theory stories about what took place that day!
TOS,
You have no damn clue what you are talking about in regards to jet fuel, burn temp. and the reaction on steel beams.
Here is a pic from ground zero where the main support beams were burned through and clearly this was the result of burning jet fuel that melted them.
And obviously the burning jet fuel was so hot it was turning the metal structure of the Twin Towers into molten streams which lead to its weaken state and ultimately its tragic collapse.
Why do you keep denying the obvious?
You're such a maroon to fall for the conspiracy theory stories about what took place that day!
Wkmac, dont sound like an idiot. If you THINK ( and i use the word carefully ) that jet fuel could burn two perfect angles into treated steel in EQUAL cuts, then you need to have your head examined or your diploma taken away from you.
Why dont you look up what temperatures would be needed in order to turn STEEL into a molten state and then into Iron ore.
You are smart on some things, but on this one, you dont know what you are talking about.
quote:
"The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° friend) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° friend). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross, in the same public talk where he stated regarding the phenomena of molten steel, “I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.” Yet there is abundant proof of the molten metal, which subsequent tests reveal to be iron, in the debris piles. Furthermore, NIST itself performed extensive fire tests to establish the temperatures reached by the WTC office and jet fuel fires. The temperatures established are far below the temperatures required to produce all of the above phenomena – which occurred both before and during the destruction and at Ground Zero."
Educate yourself Wk.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/347...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html
TOS.
You just got played and the sarcasm is staring you in the face!
Wiggle harder.
Look at your photo number 2, and ask how did jet fuel CUT two equal angles, and the same angles "co-incendentally" that demolition experts cut when taking a building down in a controlled demolition.
You dont have to be an expert to realize there is more to this story that needs to be found out.
Except, these "yay murrica" types will believe anything that the BUSH administration placed in front of them.
TOS.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
I don't know about the "maroon" part but TOS seems to be hinting at sabotage, as in placed satchel charges, on 9/11. Building 7 wasn't hit but it came down anyway. Some folks believe it's all part of a long range plan for the placement of the New World Order.
This plan started long before Bush or Obama.
I know this may be beyond the scope of some on this forum but just listen.....
It's called "order out of chaos".
Step One: Create "chaos".....as in 9/11 and/or the war in the Middle East. The flood of immigrants create "chaos".
Step Two: Create "order", in the person of Obama, this person will become a "Savior" or "Messiah", will be exalted and assume full and complete control (martial law) of the USA.
It is then the NWO comes to fruition.
I agree with TOS. Something other than burning jet fuel cut that real pretty incision in the pictured structural I beam.
Let the "tin foil hat" remarks start from the short-sighted folks here.
This plan started long before Bush or Obama.
I know this may be beyond the scope of some on this forum but just listen.....
It's called "order out of chaos".
Step One: Create "chaos".....as in 9/11 and/or the war in the Middle East. The flood of immigrants create "chaos".
Step Two: Create "order", in the person of Obama, this person will become a "Savior" or "Messiah", will be exalted and assume full and complete control (martial law) of the USA.
It is then the NWO comes to fruition.
I agree with TOS. Something other than burning jet fuel cut that real pretty incision in the pictured structural I beam.
Let the "tin foil hat" remarks start from the short-sighted folks here.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
TOS is so full of himself, he's unable to see when something is presented that is sympathetic to his argument but uses sarcasm to make it. But to the pictures themselves. As to what appears as molten metal coming out prior to the collapse, that is both puzzling and very questioning. Jet fuel can't generate the temps to cause metal to do this. Therefore, if molten metal, where did it come from and what was the cause?
As to the cut beam, the argument there is a thermite charge that is used in building demolition but here is the problem with the photo as I see it. When was the photo taken? That beam was cut by something (not burning jet fuel) as the presence of slag clearly shows but if the photo was taken the next day or day after that from the collapse, the argument might be made that it occurred during the event itself which opens up a big can of worms. However, if the photo was made say 2 weeks or a month later, the most logical explanation was a acetylene torch was used to cut it during the debris removal process and had nothing to do with the event itself. The angle cut is also suspicious to me as a means to moving the load off its support. Was the angle cut in the same manner you might angle cut a tree in order to direct the fall of the load in a certain direction during clean up? If yes, once the cut is made so far, the metal weakens as the load falls over and there is a tearing action on the remaining metal in the beam. I see no tearing action myself. A horizon cut would merely drop the load back down upon itself presenting little value either to take down the building or in clean up removal. None of this proves anything either way but when aggregated with other elements of a suspicious nature, the answers in coincidence theory start getting a bit shakey to say the least.
All said, there are serious questions for me left to be answered but at this point the water around the day itself has been so muddied at this point, that can favor both sides for any given story too, not sure how repairable all that is at this point.
But the real focus IMO should be the days, weeks and months leading up too and following Sept. 11 that should be of far more interest as one "follows the money" so to speak. The chance of more clarity and clearer answers lay there and then you use that info to as the old saying goes, "beat the grass to startle the snakes."
There were a lot and I mean a lot of people to benefit very much from 9/11 but here is what rarely gets considered at least as I've seen it. There is nothing to prove this and I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, rather it's just question to consider of how complex this whole thing is to begin with. Here goes.
What if the WTC was indeed rigged to be taken down, not just by plane but with explosives? But what if the riggers themselves were Al Qaeda and the gov't itself, it happening under their watch, is not wanting that to get out in fear that we may realize how inept they really are?
What if at the same time this was occurring and there were signs and hints of what was in play or about to play out (there were signs and people inside the gov't did speak out, but what if a faction within gov't and without in the private sector all had vested interests for this to occur and saw a way to profit from it?
What if people who were in gov't speaking out and warning were stonewalled and silenced so everything would play out and then in the aftermath, that cabal of forces could then profit on the foreknowledge or the wreckage after the fact?
Nearly 3/4ths of the American public question the lone shooter/Oswald in the Kennedy assassination and for the moment let's just say for argument, that majority is correct. What would it have taken to hide the truth from the public for over 50 years as it relates to the murder of a sitting President and why? If that can be done and a fixed narrative sold to the public in the place of the truth, this done to an elected, sitting President of the US, how hard to do the same with the destruction of 3 buildings and if one can kill a President, what is several thousand civilians? Or the fact that an incident occurred in a far way place called the Gulf of Tonkin that now 50 years later all admit never happened and yet 58k American boys lay dead as a consequence of what never actually occurred and yet Congress and our gov't acted upon it as though it did? Again, what does 3k dead mean in light of such?
Where do the truth lay? IMO it will come down to brave souls willing to beat the grass that ultimately drive it out into the open. We already have Congressmen and women from both parties who have seen the classified 28 pages not released in the Commission report who have read those pages and can't reveal their content (because of classified status) but all admit after reading those pages their whole view of 9/11 dramatically changed. There is just one example right there that we don't have all the facts and there is a concerted effort, justified or not, to keep those facts from us and they are enough to make a group from Congress admit it changed their view of the day.
Take from that what you will.
February 2015' NY Times piece on the 28 pages presenting one potential.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Big difference between a KC10 Extender (military plane shown during first part of video) and a twin (as in 2) engine aircraft. The KC10 has 3 engines. It also has a readily visible fuel boom extending from the rear that would be obvious in any photos.
KC135's (our other military tanker) have 4 engines. The best stop-motionshot of all is of what is clearly a 767 flying into the building. United Airlines had a primarily gray paint scheme in 2001, and American Airlines had a polished aluminum scheme at that time, which would also appear gray at speed.
The idiot on the street doesn't know the difference between a Cessna and a B-52. That is painfully obvious.
Last edited:
