Posted on 09/06/2006 7:45:51 AM PDT by Vasilli22
sounds like a rabbit cage redux to me....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1662476/posts
I know what aPhD(aka Post Hole Digger) but this clown was caller a "philosopher of science", whatever that is
Yes a 707 was the design criteria aircraft. What they did not consider was someone ramming on into the building *deliberately*, thus they used much lower speeds, figuring that an aircraft accidentally hitting the towers would be on takeoff or landing from LaGuardia or JFK and thus slower than were the 767s which actually hit the buildings. The 767 larger than a 707 as well. A 707-320 had a gross weight of 336,000 lbs. A 767 has a GW of 395,000 to 450,000 lbs depending on the model. The WTC 767s were both the lighter variants, according to Wikipedia anyway. More of the 767 is probably fuel, since structures have gotten lighter.
The planning was going on in 1999. So that means that Clinton and his administration would have been in on the conspiracy.
The left is totally stark raving mad.
Most likely the commercial JetA. JP-8 is very similar to JetA, with additional additives. These are kerosine type fuels, while JP-4 and Jet B are naptha-kerosene type. JP6 was a specialized fuel for the XB-70, JP-7 was for the SR-71.
We invaded so that we could triple the amount that we pay them for oil?
"There are some pictures and very interesting videos on the internet of the damage to the Pentagon and they clearly show that a plane filled with fuel could not possibly have caused the damage (such as desks and books totally undamaged next to the point of impact). The physical evidence points to a missile causing the damage!"
- Graham, Lancaster
Fury as academics claim 911 was 'inside job' the Daily Mail
Exactly! And thereby enriching Bush's and Cheney's oil buddies!
(DUmmie's logic)
The top of that tower fell to the east and pretty much flattened WTC #4. This is all that was left of it afterward:
And you can see from the following diagram that #4, before 70% of it was destroyed by the tower falling on it, was similar in size to buildings 5 and 6.
That is why I have a problem with people who say the towers "collapsed quickly and neatly onto their own footprints". Is this how a sane person defines "neat"?
I think the South Tower mostly damaged other buildings to the east, south, and west (including some further away than WTC 7). But #7 was plenty close enough to the North Tower to have taken heavy damage from its collapse.
This is a picture of #7 from the North Tower (you can see WTC 5 & 6 down at the base). From this viewpoint, it's not hard to see how debris from a building that tall could reach across that little street.
What is really frightening is that these people are teaching our children. Our tax dollars at work folks.
Now you're using logic and facts. The left does not like that!
I've seen others of this mindset cite examples of a match being thrown into an open pool of jet fuel and the match going out. this PROVES that jet fuel does not readily burn nor does it reach high temps while burning.
The fallacy is that the aircraft were moving at max throttle and the tanks ruptured and became at least partially an aerosol (Fuel-Air Explosive) which radically changes its explosive characteristics and the net heat produced. Besides as pointed out in other posts here, this did NOT MELT STEEL but instead reduced the building net strength sufficiently till gravity overcame building integrity.
These aircraft were chosen for large fuel loads (trans-continental flights) to maximize their explosive potential. Just because the perpetrators were terrorists does not mean that they were unintelligent. The idea that they could not do this and that the only answer was an internal US Conspiracy fails on so many levels that to go further is pointless.
Thanks!
Absolutely. Thanks again.
Just as a funny aside, I could never remember which tower was 1 and which was 2. I could only remember that the restaurant was on 1 and the obvservation deck on 2 by saying you have two eyes but one mouth.
Now I remember which was hit first, and which fell first.
Sad.
And “scientists” wonder why so many ignore their hysteria over global warming.
Boy who cried wolf.
The current line on #7 is (paraphrasing) "It fell down even though it was not hit by planes, sustained no major structural damage when the towers collapsed, and had only non-major fires on a few floors". This statement is accompanied by photos of the relatively-undamaged north face.
I'd like to know what they think is responsible for taking these big chunks out of the southern face of the building. You can see them even through the huge clouds of SMOKE from those fires-that-weren't-major.
Maybe it was scores of CIA agents rapelling down the building with jackhammers. The smoke must have hid them.
Nope. They don't. And they think they are helping us who've been 'deceived', rescuing us from ourselves, so they are all fired up to push ahead.
Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.
Yet, they believe a small group of professors can expose the gigantic alleged cover up of a major government? Delusions of grandeur. And they'd prefer to believe that the Islamists are a nice, if misunderstood, religious group whom they can shepherd and teach. More delusions of grandeur. They'd like to believe the talibani can't live in caves and pull off acts of terrorism (did they see the MSM footage in 96 of Taliban training in Sudan?), but with their leftie help the taliban will have what they need.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
And God said, "Prof. Jones? I don't think I know a Prof. Jones... request on hold..."
Um, yeah sure if they say so.
Oh, I agree. But what is it Hitler said about a lie? Repeat it often enough and it becomes the 'truth'... Besides, what do they care if 'we' don't believe? They're too busy indoctrinating educating our next generation, and they have strategic footholds in the best universities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.