I think enipla is saying that in the time of the plane entering the building (milliseconds) not enough fuel-air mixture would occur to create a visible explosion. She is not saying that there was not an ignition, just that it wasn’t immediate (again, specified time is milliseconds).
[Sidebar] I believe **enilpa **is male. [/sidebar]
Crap. That’s what I get for guessing.
Thanks for stepping up. And this thread did move very fast. I was probably not clear.
Re:fuel - I was just countering Jay_Jay’s claim that the fuel must ‘explode’ before the wings entered/hit the building. And his claim that it must be fake because it didn’t.
Of course the fuel went off nearly like a bomb when the aircraft wings disintegrated and fuel was pressed into to the space at very high velocity. Mixing with air as it did so. Plenty of ignition sources at that point. Very much the way a diesel engine operates. Pressure+Fuel+Air=Boom. Add ignition sources too. And that’s what you get.
No worries Trinopus.
No prob. Don’t care. I am very much a guy. The name ‘enipla’ is Alpine backwards. Alpine is the name of my first dog. And Alpine is the environment I live in. 
Just to reinforce this (for the OP or someone else thinking like the OP), recall the fuel was moving at over 700 feet per second. Even taking into account the disintegrating plane, fuel tanks and building, the fuel is still going to be moving forward into the structure, spreading out. The fuel tanks aren’t going to rupture and explode instantly…probably not even in the first second or so. It just doesn’t work like that. Which is why it didn’t explode until it was inside the building and dispersing through the floor. Just like what happened at the Empire State Building.
Bbbut…he has a moral obligation to keep his posts per day ratio up over 100! Where have you gone JJ, Doper Nation turns its lonely eyes to you…
Woo woo woo…
WI we switched to the goat door first?
Wot?
One of the videos I ran across was a guy pointing at still frames of flight 175 as it approached the impact. “See, there,” he said, “under the wings, there is some sort of pod attached. That is not normal for a passenger plane. We had experts analyze it: it is 3-dimensional, not a shadow or artifact. There, in this frame, as the plane is reaching the building, you see a flash. See how the flash lines up with the pod? This had to have been a military airplane firing a missile from that pod …”
Yeah, well, uh. I looked at some 767 images. The fuselage has a sort of fairing-sweep (whatever they call it) under the wings. The fuselage is not a straight cylinder. They were pointing out the fairing-bulge under the wing and calling it a pod on a hard-point.
Just a quick image search is all it took to debunk (at least in my mind) this suspicious “anomaly”. That is the problem with these “truthers”: they cannot be arsed to do a few minutes research to find the gaps in their misinformation. Jay_Jay posts a link about the façade construction and fails to read further on, to discover the part where his whole claim just falls apart.
It is sad, really. The “truthers” and other CTers might have legitimate complaints or concerns about our system, but they let their energies be redirected into this other paranoid bullshit when they could actually be working toward getting their underlying issues and concerns addressed/resolved. But I guess it is just easier to throw accusations and blame around.
Or maybe the Kabal has engineered it so that their real enemies will get enmired in nonsense, rendering them ineffective. It is like some kind of …
Super cool! I completely mistook what was being said. I completely agree with this. Apologies again.
Jay_Jay’s posts make no sense at all, but I had one moment of hope that he wasn’t totally out of touch with reality. Now, alas, I’m disappointed (but not surprised.)
Just as incredulity over the use of phones from airplanes in flight–when demonstrated to be a real phenomenon at the time of the event–does nothing to even challenge, much less deny, the fact that they occurred.
You have nothing. You declare events with nothing to support your claims and you dismiss facts simply because you have a pre-determined belief in your own ignorance.
- ::: sigh ::: *
Not people. YOU. You have bought into the lie that it was all faked and even when your face has been rubbed in the hard science showing that it’s a lie, you refuse to believe the facts.
Do you think the moon landings were faked as well? Do the Illuminati truly run the world, or is it the lizard people handling the reins? Was there a second shooter on the grassy knoll? And the Holocaust didn’t happen, right?
How many of these batshit crazy conspiracy theories do you adhere to?
I don’t think Jay_Jay is a real person. The sentence structure in many of the responses aren’t consistent.
Wait, wait!
Is someone saying that Jay Jay hit the buildings?!!
I know it’s a long thread - I must have missed that explanation.
Did he penetrate or bounce off?
Jay Jay claims the govt faked videos of airplanes hitting the towers and all the videos you see of the impact are fabricated.
What about the videos you don’t see? If it wasn’t planes, but something else that hit the tower, there would be amateur video of the actual objects (whatever they may be). These videos would be uploaded all over the internet. There is no way for the Govt to intercept these amateur videos. How does Jay Jay explain their absence?
The greys erased all videos in the area with an EMP burst.
JJ logic
I do so loath & despise a game of “my experts are better than your experts”
however with that said - - - World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks
Note that these guys disagree with me about the airliners however they got something right in that the
bit about WTC7 descending a free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec …
the real serious problem I have with this sort of game, is that it really shouldn’t take a Professor to
tell people that the 2.25 sec of free fall is more than significant, its totally damning evidence that shows WTC7 was blown up, it didn’t just “collapse”.
Explain the lack of audible explosions.
WTC 7 is a non-starter. If it was purposefully brought down, so what? It was the best possible time for it to fall. If they did it and lied about doing it, why would we even care?
NOTE: David Chandler doesn't agree with my position on the fake nature of the planes,
its an imperfect world ..... whatever ....