New 911 Truth video - Twin Towers

[no name 1]

WTC 7 did look a hell of a lot like a controlled demolition. the towers only vaguely. anyone else think that the top of the towers looked like they just fell out of control?

well at 103 & 110 stories, how CAN that fall with control.....?

[homesick_american 1]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

[Fuzzness 2]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

[homesick_american 1]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

No, there's no way that's true. Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact. Sorry.

[Mirorgate 0]

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

and yet everything else inside made up from petroleum products (plastices, glues, etc) were inside and ignited by being dowsed with nearly full fuel tanks for a trans continental flight. Compared to gas for cars.. jet fuel burns at a slower rate. it is not "flash" and all gone.

[homesick_american 1]

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

and yet everything else inside made up from petroleum products (plastices, glues, etc) were inside and ignited by being dowsed with nearly full fuel tanks for a trans continental flight. Compared to gas for cars.. jet fuel burns at a slower rate. it is not "flash" and all gone.

That's true. Jet fuel is kind of gloopy and kerosene-y, if that makes any sense. It's pretty viscous stuff. It has a low flash point as well. Put all that together and you have a fuel that is unlikely to mostly vaporize on impact. It's just not possible.

[Fuzzness 2]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

No, there's no way that's true. Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact. Sorry.

That's true.... too bad those 767's were not fully fueled. Aircraft only have enough fuel to get to their destination.

[homesick_american 1]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

No, there's no way that's true. Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact. Sorry.

That's true.... too bad those 767's were not fully fueled. Aircraft only have enough fuel to get to their destination.

They have enough to get to their destination plus some. Both of the aircraft that hit the world trade center were fueled for cross-country flights so there is no way in hell all of the fuel burned up on impact.

Aviation fuel also doesn't possess the physical properties to just fully vaporize/explode like that on impact. There would have been viscous pools of it at the crash site in the building...all over the place. It would have splattered on the walls and would run down elevator shafts and stairwells. It doesn't gush like gasoline or water. It's just not made that way. It oozes.

[Fuzzness 2]

..."It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones’s desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What’s more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11." ...

You don't have to melt the steel for the buildings to collapse. All the fire had to do was burn hot enough to weaken it, and jet fuel can burn hot enough for that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you've been told is all 100% unadulterated bullsh!t.

most of the fuel was burned on impact, and pretty much outside of the building

No, there's no way that's true. Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact. Sorry.

That's true.... too bad those 767's were not fully fueled. Aircraft only have enough fuel to get to their destination.

They have enough to get to their destination plus some. Both of the aircraft that hit the world trade center were fueled for cross-country flights so there is no way in hell all of the fuel burned up on impact.

Aviation fuel also doesn't possess the physical properties to just fully vaporize/explode like that on impact. There would have been viscous pools of it at the crash site in the building...all over the place. It would have splattered on the walls and would run down elevator shafts and stairwells. It doesn't gush like gasoline or water. It's just not made that way. It oozes.

You said Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact

I wasn't disputing that. I was just simply saying that most of it burned on impact. At least, that's what it looked like to me. Did you not notice a huge fireball?

[homesick_american 1]

You said Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact

I wasn't disputing that. I was just simply saying that most of it burned on impact. At least, that's what it looked like to me. Did you not notice a huge fireball?

Yes, I noticed the fireball.

Not all of the jet fuel burned on impact. Obviously it continued to burn for some time, and hot enough to weaken the steel structures holding up the building.

There. Was. No. Conspiracy. (Except that of al-Qaeda, who are responsible for the whole thing.)

[Fuzzness 2]

You said Fully-fueled 767s have a lot more fuel than what burned up on impact

I wasn't disputing that. I was just simply saying that most of it burned on impact. At least, that's what it looked like to me. Did you not notice a huge fireball?

Yes, I noticed the fireball.

Not all of the jet fuel burned on impact. Obviously it continued to burn for some time, and hot enough to weaken the steel structures holding up the building.

Yes, but don't you think a great bit of it burned off right away? Obviously some got into some places and continued to burn slowly and very hot. But I still am not convinced that all of it was responsible for the weakening steel. But I'm no engineer. I don't know how much is needed to do what it did.

There. Was. No. Conspiracy. (Except that of al-Qaeda, who are responsible for the whole thing.)

are you suggesting that I think it was a conspiracy?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

are you suggesting that I think it was a conspiracy?

The video would seem to suggest that some sort of "secret" conspiracy took place...

[rclouse 0]

That's true.... too bad those 767's were not fully fueled. Aircraft only have enough fuel to get to their destination.

It still takes a lot of fuel to fly a heavy from the east coast to the west coast.

You're right, the fuel did burn up pretty fast, like in the first 5-10 minutes. But it started all of the other flammable stuff in the building burning with no way to extinguish it. With the fire protective coating on the steel stripped off by the impact, it was just a matter of time before the buildings collapsed.

Why are we STILL wasting our time trying to explain what happened on 9/11? The only conspiracy was with a bunch of well funded fanatics. No jews, no Men in Black, no CIA, no Stonemasons or Illuminati or Stonecutters, for that matter.

[Fuzzness 2]

are you suggesting that I think it was a conspiracy?

The video would seem to suggest that some sort of "secret" conspiracy took place...

I and the video are not the same

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

are you suggesting that I think it was a conspiracy?

The video would seem to suggest that some sort of "secret" conspiracy took place...

I and the video are not the same

If people endorse it, it does tend to "colour" things somewhat.