If he quotes Kevin ‘gypsum would soak up jet fuel like a sponge!’ Ryan I will laugh my ass off.
nm. No need to respond to bs.
It’s estimated that at least 50% of the available fuel was consumed on impact, and we know the fire was fuel starved due to the color of the smoke.
We can calculate the time based on the eyewitness, but where should we start since you don’t believe they heard what they said they heard.
You seem to be discounting the possibility that the ESB crash was also a covert demolition set up to discredit the truthers 56 years in advance.
It takes time to plan this sort of thing out, you know.
I think we have to ask Split P&J the same simple question that we asked Psikey:
If the “official version” and “what we all saw with our own eyes” is incorrect, then what happened to bring the WTC down?
Estimated by whom?
How is fuel consumed?
Is fuel combustion the only source of smoke?
I believe people heard and saw all sorts of things. Correctly attributing those observations is the tricky part.
It’s estimated by whom exactly? Richard Gage? You just said before that most of the plane’s fuel was consumed on impact. Now it’s 50%. The colour of the smoke is something else you have picked up off AE911 i.e. it’s meaningless.
Calculate away. No one is stopping you. Or, more realistically, link me to the site you were about to copy and paste from.
If the key witness, Rodriguez, could stick to a single story and not be proven to have elaborated it over time then I’d find his stories slightly more believable. He also said, and this is a point you have conveniently skimmed over, that he initially thought he heard a generator exploding. Why do you not believe the eyewitnesses could have in fact heard exploding generators?
That is of course if the sound of someone dragging heavy furniture over a floor could be mistaken for a explosion powerful enough to register on a seismograph. Twice.
And the color of the smoke would be from more than just jet fuel. Insulation, carpeting, wall materials, furniture, etc. would also be burning.
Simply not true.
IIRC NIST estimated that 20% of the fuel was consumed outside the building in the fireball, 40% was in the impact zone, and the remaining 40% was forced into the lower levels.
When interviewed by the press on 9/11, Rodriguez did not say a damn thing about explosions in the basement or anywhere else. That didn’t come along until after being interviewed by radio host Alex “Everything Is a Conspiracy” Jones and filing a lawsuit against the Bush Administration.
If we’re discussing eyewitnesses not in the basement, there’s also the sound of bodies impacting pavement after falling some 80 levels. Which has been described as the sound of the popping of wet paper bags.
In the past year, people in my city have mistaken car engines, slammed doors, and other loud sounds as gunshots and called the police. And that’s without a giant friggin’ airplane hitting a building.
If people can mistake sounds for gunshots under normal circumstances, what the hell is surprising about people mistaking the sounds associated with an abnormal circumstance (a giant friggin’ airplane hitting a building and bodies/debris falling all around) as explosions? People don’t do well with loud, sudden noises. Good for monkey survival. Not so good for objective recall/evaluation of the facts.
This is veering awfully close to grassy knoll territory.
You know what’s missing here? Citation. The actual calculations. Any kind of a source. Come on, man, you say they exist, let’s see 'em. If you’re so sure it should be easy to show your work. You claim that the air-fuel ratio made it impossible for the jet fuel to travel like that. Prove it.
those statements don’t contradict anything. fuel from the plane poured down the elevator shafts and ignited. It blew the doors off the elevators in the lobby and badly burned people in the elevator.
My cousin was in the subway station when the first plane hit. He mentioned nothing about below-ground explosions.
I mean, if we’re going to pull eyewitness accounts into this thread with no citations, then there we go.
That’s a pretty shabby cite. 
How? I mean, physics would dictate that fuel would rise, not fall, since…gravity! Thus proving that the only logical conclusion is that the government used explosives to take down the buildings. 
(On a more serious note, there were a lot of things that could have exploded inside the buildings. Several of them had diesel bunkers for backup generators, there were cleaning supplies and other volatiles that are in any large office building, and since not all of the jet fuel exploded or was vaporized on impact you could have situations where you had the proper fuel air mix to cause explosions. Also, when the buildings were collapsing you had explosive type sounds as the air was compressed and blew out the windows on its way down, sort of like collapsing an accordion. And finally, eye witness accounts are often confused and contradictory or conflated because people attempt to piece the fragments of what they saw or thought they saw/heard into the context of the greater story later on. As noted by others, however, explosives used in demolition are high explosives that don’t produce things like fireballs or Hollywood types of explosions.)