Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

I read it twice just to make sure. It said jetfuel. But that doesn't really matter because we're analyzing propaganda.

The B-25 crash proved nothing, a comparison between apples and oranges.

Drone aircraft hit the towers.

So, quote the paragraph were the referenced source claimed a B-25 carried jet fuel as asked!

Doubling down on what has to be labeled as a lie on your part at this time?

Your original statement.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

About this article?
B-25 Empire State Building Collision
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Where “jetfuel” as one word is not found in the article.

Where the term jet fuel is used only twice.

First instance of jet fuel.

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Second instance of jet fuel.

Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Now cite what article you are claiming the article stated a B-25 carried jet fuel. And quote the actual statement?

Or you just blatantly lying?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

If you believe the official story then you denying Newton laws of gravity. Gravity requires vertical motion. Objects move in the direction of the force.

If you're bringing Newton into this then you'll need to apply his laws of motion to complete the picture. Tall sections of the outer walls of the building are seen falling outward in long sections and that is where the horizontal motion is acquired. According to Newton, that horizontal motion will continue until acted upon by an external force like hitting the ground or a neighbouring structure for example.

It's the reason that declared 'collapse' exclusion zones around structures likely to collapse are a radius of about 1.5x the height of the structure. If there'd been time to make such a determination and declaration for either tower (over 1100' tall), it would have been a radius of approx 2000' all around the building (~12500 ft^2) at credible risk from falling heavy debris.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

I read it twice just to make sure. It said jetfuel. But that doesn't really matter because we're analyzing propaganda.

The B-25 crash proved nothing, a comparison between apples and oranges.

Drone aircraft hit the towers.

And there we see conspiracy theorists in a nutshell:

Read it twice, still managed to get it wrong and doesn't have the honesty, integrity or courage to admit it.

Dear me

a reply to: mrthumpy
Still waiting on the other thread about 911....seems you have nothing worthwhile to link.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy
Still waiting on the other thread about 911....seems you have nothing worthwhile to link.

Why bother. It wouldn’t change your mind anyway...... Just like citing the truth to Salander will not change that individuals mind in what a simple article actually stated.

a reply to: neutronflux
So.... why do you bother?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
So.... why do you bother?

It’s fun watching conspiracies try to justify their delusions. Watching Salander try to justify the fantasy the WTC was brought down by nukes is like watching a flat earther deny a spherical earth.

a reply to: neutronflux
Are you mrthumpy? No.
So why are you answering for him?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy
Still waiting on the other thread about 911....seems you have nothing worthwhile to link.

Can't help you out of your own personal ocean of confirmation bias. That's something you need to recognise and overcome yourself I'm afraid

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Are you mrthumpy? No.
So why are you answering for him?

It’s an open forum that allows me too.

a reply to: Salander- a 300 Ton section of steel beams from wtc1 landed 600 ft away in the winter garden what provided the energy to do this? This is from Collapsing floors? Makes my BS meter go off. The official story is twallop top to bottom and beginning to end.

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: Salander- a 300 Ton section of steel beams from wtc1 landed 600 ft away in the winter garden what provided the energy to do this? This is from Collapsing floors? Makes my BS meter go off. The official story is twallop top to bottom and beginning to end.

The collapse is on video with audio. Cite proof there is evidence of an explosion that caused the event vs the result of portions of a 1000 ft building tumbling out.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: mrthumpy

From the building's point of view it really doesn't matter which type of aviation fuel is applied and ignited. The outcome is the same (fire).

You're right, it really isn't important. What is important to note is that conspiracy theorists are unable to admit to even the most trivial mistake

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: Salander- a 300 Ton section of steel beams from wtc1 landed 600 ft away in the winter garden

From how high?

a reply to: mrthumpy
Pointless speaking to those that believe the offical story..... their mind has been made up also.

Sad that they will not provide an a link to an alternative explanation...... for fear of it being dismissed lol.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy
Pointless speaking to those that believe the offical story..... their mind has been made up also.

Sad that they will not provide an a link to an alternative explanation...... for fear of it being dismissed lol.

Your confirmation bias is your own problem to overcome I'm afraid

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: mrthumpy
Pointless speaking to those that believe the offical story..... their mind has been made up also.

Sad that they will not provide an a link to an alternative explanation...... for fear of it being dismissed lol.

You could say exactly the same thing about you folk.
Irony?

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: Salander- a 300 Ton section of steel beams from wtc1 landed 600 ft away in the winter garden what provided the energy to do this? This is from Collapsing floors? Makes my BS meter go off. The official story is twallop top to bottom and beginning to end.

Yessir, simple physics.

Those in denial pretend the laws of physics were suspended that day.

The closer the scrutiny, the more completely the official narrative fails.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008

You have little to no credibility WMD.

Your link describes the B-25 as having jetfuel onboard. Guess what--B-25's used avgas, and any knowledgeable person would know that.

Zero Credibility WMD.

Still waiting on you to quote the article where it stated a B-25 used jet fuel, or you just a proven liar now?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: Salander- a 300 Ton section of steel beams from wtc1 landed 600 ft away in the winter garden what provided the energy to do this? This is from Collapsing floors? Makes my BS meter go off. The official story is twallop top to bottom and beginning to end.

Yessir, simple physics.

Those in denial pretend the laws of physics were suspended that day.

The closer the scrutiny, the more completely the official narrative fails.

Still waiting on you to refute the below?

You going to talk about actual Evidence? Or just have a conniption fit?

Again... the actual whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Kwahakev tried this game and posted this picture.

originally posted by: kwakakev

So far, you haven’t even provide any evidence concerning cut steel columns.

If you are not going to be serious about this i am not going to help you with your silly games.

One. If explosives hurled this massive piece of building, the explosion wound have been massive. The resultant pressure wave would have been obvious, and ruptured eardrums throughout manhattan. There is still intact windows in the building part of the WTC fell into. The pressure waves from explosions hurling ton pieces of building would have completely knocked out windows.

Two. The piece contains broken welds, with no indication of being worked by cutting charges.

Three, why would cutting charges hurl large pieces of building?

Four, the pieces are explained by the tumbling action of the structural steel.