You know, you still haven’t answered my question as to what you think happened on 9/11. At this point I’m not convinced I care to know.
“mentally unbalanced” Right, Please note
Patriotsquestion911.com
do you consider thousands of professionals ( see AE911TRUTH )
to all be “mentally unbalanced” ?
[quote=“Jay_Jay, post:295, topic:798861”]
Yes, jet fuel can melt steel, OK
however, in order to produce the result as observed, the fire would have to melt or weaken steel in a uniform manner, otherwise we would see something quite different.
oh yea, reference for any chem majors out there
Bolding mine.
That is simply not true.
Your video starts off with failure in assuming the Kerosene was the only flammable in the impact area. Sorry kid, but no.
Sham sites do not impress me,
I already linked to the ISF thread where the AE911 talent pool is shown tp be quite shallow and outnumbered.
FOr the record, I don’t think Richard Gage is unbalanced, but he is a con-artist.
Jews behind it all? Please! Isn’t it obvious? Seven *fifty *sevens, seven sixty sevens-- obviously, thus was all engineered by seven* zark *seven!
When are you going to realize that our lives are being manipulated by cheesy filler from bowdlerized 1970s anime!
And so your solution was to invent crazy theories that have no basis in reality and complain using them on the internet.
Way to go, Ace. You sure showed them forces of EVIL.
I believe it’ll turn out that your understanding of Constitutional law is worse than your understanding of physics! 
CMC fnord!
The only person on this thread who is making sport of a serious issue that actually happened, in which thousands of people died, is you. The rest of us are making sport of silly nonsense that never actually happened, which is an entirely appropriate response to nonsense.
If you had instead wanted to discuss governmental responses to 9/11, you might have started a decent thread- but that wasn’t what you did.
You said the energy increases “exponentially” with speed, which is not correct. 1/2 mv^2 is not an exponential equation.
You’ve also tried to cast doubt on photographic evidence. That’s pretty odd; why should we doubt what we can plainly see?
What do you think actually happened?
Consider, though, that the wings are kind of not affected by the structural integrity of the fuselage. The wings were very heavy, including several thousand pounds of fuel and two massive engines. Even if the fuselage crumpled up against the supposedly impermeable wall (which was really not designed to handle high, concentrated facial loads), the mass of the wing section would have easily carried it forward into the building.
Note, also, that the wing-shaped gash in the building is shallower toward where the wingtips would have hit. This seems to me consistent with what would be expected.
But is this correct? The nose of many jetliners is a hollow space filled with avionics (like radar). To suggest that it would behave like a hollow-point bullet seems specious at best.
Lets look at the facts
B-25
max weight takeoff weight is 35,000 lbs
max speed is 272 mph
cruise speed is 230 mph
F=M*A 35,000 x 272 mph =** 9,520,000 **
B-767
max takeoff weight is 142,882 lbs or over 4 times the weight of a B-25
max speed is 486 knots or 559 mph
max fuel load 16,700 usg times 6.8 (lbs/g) or 113,560 lbs which is over 3 times the weight of a B-25
F=M*A 142,882 x 559 = **79,871,038 **which is over 8 times the kinetic energy of the B-25
The Empire State building was an old design that distributed the weight on steel columns spaced evenly across the bulding’s footprint. They used something like concrete on the beams as fire retardant.
The WTC design took the evenly spaced columns and concentrated them on one set of outer walls and one set of inner walls. It was built like a tube inside a tube and it provide much more open space inside. They used a spray-on fibrous fire retardant on the beams. It blew off on impact.
Originally the engineers thought the outer walls gave way because of structural failure due to heat. When they examined the wreckage they found that the bolts holding the floor joists to the walls were intact and that the floor joists sagged under the prolonged fire and thus pulled the outer walls inward causing them to fail under the load of the weight above.
FACTS:
4 widebody aircraft full of people (and fuel) were hijacked.
2 of them hit the WTC buildings and 1 hit the Pentagon.
The WTC buildings failed at point of impact.
there is physical evidence, video evidence and eye witness accounts for all of this.
As to your theory that the planes would disintegrate entirely upon impact that doesn’t make any sense at all. The buildings were not made of solid steel. they were not made of solid concrete. Here is what a 2x4 does to concrete in a tornado which is moving much slower than an airliner. Here is an aluminum gutter all the way through a tree.. By your reasoning they should have crumpled upon impact.
Aircraft of that size have tremendous chunks of metal in them such as engine shafts, wheel assemblies and the structures that deal with the weights of these items. At over 500 mph that’s a tremendous amount of energy that is tranmitted in to an object.
Despite the visual evidence that the aircraft created large holes in the buildings and this was the point of failure that led to their collapse, you have chosen to believe explosives were involved and that the planes were driven into the exact spot of failure.
Yeah, I’ve read your blog posts bringing these things up. You need to work a bit harder on your assertion that ** the fact that it can be proven beyond any doubt that the media lied** aspect. You might have more luck than your attempts to use math, physics, and science in general.
You haven’t been reading well
I do NOT propose to tell “what happened”
I am explaining why I KNOW what didn’t happen and
therefore the knowledge that the media lied about what they say happened.
is this not sufficient to cause AMERICA to be MAD AS HELL?
(Bolding Mine)
Uh, Magiver? You’re not using the right formula here.
Why should America be “MAD AS HELL” about assertions you make that have already be proven time and time again to be false?
TIRED AS HELL? Maybe.
So, what DO you think actually happened?
Yes, absolutely. It manifests in the way they argue. Picture having someone standing in front of you and trying to tell you THE TRUTH about something. It doesn’t have to be 9/11. It could be anything. Coke versus Pepsi, dangers of aspartame, best place to get a haircut, Beatles versus Elvis, whatever. And the person who knows THE TRUTH is standing in front of you repeating the same things over and over again and getting progressively more rude about when you’re not jumping onboard their truth train. How do you feel about that person? Would you continue to try to talk to them and bring them around to your version of the truth (or let them try to convince you of theirs provided they can come up with a better argument) or would you tell them to go away? And what would you think about that person after?
9/11 Truthers come in here thinking that all they have to do is point out that one fatal flaw and everyone is going to go “I see! It’s been a lie all along but you have saved me!” They’re always disappointed when they come in with that one fiery piece of unassailable truth and the crowd here just dismisses it out of hand. They never have anything beyond a single argument and when that argument fails they change the subject. The people here are not teetering on the brink of being convinced that it’s all a big lie. There has to be an actual argument with actual evidence presented to even begin to impress this crowd and even if that was being presented, it would still be torn apart. But the Truthers never get that far. They just fixate on that one thing that the sheeple refuse to understand. And people who do that do not understand people.
So how was it arranged that the various fuel sources in the building
and note that standard office contents are not considered fuel sources because of UL fire rating of standard office stuff like chairs & desks & cubicles … however how was it arranged that the heating of the steel would be uniform in its distribution of fire, because if the heating was asymmetrical, the collapse event would look much different than was was shown on TV.
Of course you won’t. CTers almost never do. To do so would show that their idea has a million laughable flaws in it.
You ‘KNOW’ on the flimsiest of reasoning. That is terrifying. The 911 hijackers ‘KNEW’ they were going to be rewarded in the afterlife for their massacre.
citation needed*
No, because all you have produced is a laughable pile of pathetic conspiracy clownshoes claims. You have failed utterly to defend the assertions you have made and your comparisons are getting beyond the double facepalm level.