67 replies to this topic

[Fightin_da_Man]

tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 10:26 AM, said:

40 reasons to doubt the official story
http://www.911truth....041221155307646

The government claimed that jet fuel melted the Twin Towers' steel girders, they fell in ten seconds, there is no possible way that adds up.

Could you show me the calculations you did which show that the jet fuel theory doesn't add up?  I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion.

[tiredoflies]

Fightin_da_Man, on 13 September 2009 - 11:54 AM, said:

Could you show me the calculations you did which show that the jet fuel theory doesn't add up?  I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion.

I didn't mean mathematically, I meant it as "make sense"

The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.

[Dopamino]

The buildings were standing for hours after the planes hit. "They fell in 10 seconds" means that it took ten seconds for the to go from standing to in rubble on the ground. If the major support beams were weakened, it's logical that it could take that short of time to fall.

[Steve]

tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 12:03 PM, said:

I didn't mean mathematically, I meant it as "make sense"

The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.

You're aware that burning jet fuel burns a lot hotter than a house fire, right?

[Gibby]

tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 12:03 PM, said:

I didn't mean mathematically, I meant it as "make sense"

The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.

Jet A-1 (the most likely specification of the fuel used) has an open air burn temperature of 287.5 °C (549.5 °F), in the relatively enclosed space the temperature could be potentially much higher, easily enough to bend steel, the stresses caused by this will lead to a collapse. Not to mention, the aircraft aluminium can potentially react with rust on the beams, causing a thermite reaction.

[The Vegan Anarchist]

Actually, the buildings didn't fall at under 10 seconds, which is recorded free-fall speed. That was clear bogus information that was given by Loose Change. Here's a video showing the true timing of the building's collapse.



Then there is building 7. Yes, if you look when the building falls completely, you'll find a free-fall speed time, but the problem is that those videos that time free-fall in their calculations lack to include the early collapse of one of building 7's sections, which would be included with the time of collapse & would knock the "free-fall" speed claim out of the door:

[Punk Rock Geek]

I used to be really big into the WTC truth movement, but it became impossible for me to keep up with it.  All I can tell you is that a lot of the evidence that is being presented within this topic by both sides is outdated.

Anyways, there is really only one piece of evidence that you need to be a truther, and it happens to be unrefutable.  Both Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, asked that they be able to testify together, and requested that their transcript not be recorded in any way.  If that's not grounds for a new investigation, then I'm not sure what is.

[Dopamino]

We all knew that Cheney was running the show from the beginning though. Bush was just the idiot puppet that the Evangelical and Bubba voters could identify with. Bush needed his staff or his wife 24/7.
Regardless, I can't believe that they agreed with those bastards' terms.