RE: The Big Lie!

RE: The Big Lie! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 4:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No thompson you asked us to figure out how much energy was released in the burning jet fuel No I did not ask you to do that. Please go back and read my posts #92 and #102. The question I asked then and again now is how many btu were available in the fuel onboard the aircraft. for some reason you thought the energy released by the jet fuel would be the same as the energy released in the fire. No this is your opinion of what I said. Why would anyone think the energy in the aircraft fuel would be equal to the energy stored in both the fuel and the debris in the building that caught fire. Why would anyone think that 1 + something would be equal 1? You said the amount of explosive force to bring down had previously been calculated by the "brain trust" in here, and stated as "we calculated". And wanted to compare the 2 values. Did I mistakenly asociate you with the previous conversation based on you refering to your part in doing them? I had no part in those calculations. If so I retract. And that is correct, I have no intrest in doing calculations based on wild estimates, that have no bearing on the question. All I asked you to do was multiply the gallons of fuel on the aircraft by the btu per gallon. I have made no estimates wild or otherwise concerning this.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:11:41 PM)
Post 92 in it entirety I gotta question. I am sure that someone knows how much diesel fuel (jet fuel) was in the aircraft that crashed into the buildings. So it would not be too difficult to come up with how many btus would be available to sink these buildings. We have already calculated ( why do you say "we calculated" if you were not part of it?)how much explosives it would have taken lets see how they compare. If the amount of energy for the two is vastly different and in what way how might this alter this discussion. thompson you seem to think the avialble BTUS = the fuel on the Jet. But you are leaving out all the other combustibles as well as the force from the impact. I honestly do not see why calcualting the amount of energy in a gallon of Jet fuel x the number of gallons means anything. What do you think it means? I am sure that the 2 numbers are vastly different, or the building would have been destroyed in jet fuel fire(which lasted less than 10 minutes), and not lasted on fire for over an hour.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Thompson, what part of the official story do you have a problem with. I would be happy to debate any of the points in it, if you think they are false. luckydog1: At this point I do not have enough data to base a decision on. I have told you before I am interested in discussion not debate. From what I have seen in this thread you do not seem interested in discussion but seem rather more inclined to simply argue about nothing and call people names. It does not strike me as too difficult to figure up the amount of btu available in the incident. It is not a secret how much of an airplane will burn. It is not a secret how much burnable stuff was in the building. It is possible to calculate how much energy is necessary to "implode" the building. It is possible to calculate how much energy was available for the fire. If there is a large difference between these two numbers don't you think it would warrent further scrutiny? thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:18:12 PM)
No thompson, I do not. It depends very much on how fast the energy was released and where, and the specific locations of energy release. In broad general terms it is a meaningless number. Its not just BTUS that are involved, thats why I think your question is meaningless. You are leaving out the potential energy of the upper 30stories, as well as the force from the impact. I understand that you are t rying to make a silly argument, knowing full well that the 2 numbers will be very different, and then trying to say it shows some sort of something.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:19:32 PM)
If you have no Data or evidence that the official story is false, why do you assert that it is?

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Post 92 in it entirety I gotta question. I am sure that someone knows how much diesel fuel (jet fuel) was in the aircraft that crashed into the buildings. So it would not be too difficult to come up with how many btus would be available to sink these buildings. We have already calculated ( why do you say "we calculated" if you were not part of it?)how much explosives it would have taken lets see how they compare. If the amount of energy for the two is vastly different and in what way how might this alter this discussion. thompson you seem to think the avialble BTUS = the fuel on the Jet. But you are leaving out all the other combustibles as well as the force from the impact. I honestly do not see why calcualting the amount of energy in a gallon of Jet fuel x the number of gallons means anything. What do you think it means? I am sure that the 2 numbers are vastly different, or the building would have been destroyed in jet fuel fire(which lasted less than 10 minutes), and not lasted on fire for over an hour. luckydog1: I refer to we as those members of this thread who did calculate how much explosives would have been necessary...I am not part of that we. I do not think the fuel on the jet was the only fuel for the fire. If we do not figure out how much energy was in the fuel then how can we add that amount to the energy in the other combustibles? Unless and until we derive the facts everything else is just opinion don't you think? thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:37:28 PM)
No, I do not think it is all just opinion. The source I posted (containing the official story) lays out how 2 planes copuld bring down the towers. Its there, Peer reviewed with Math and Footnotes. If you have any evidence to contradict the offical story, lay it out and lets discuss it. The brain trust calculating how much energy it would take is idle speculation, based on guestimates. Thompson but the basis of why your question is nonsense is that the official story does not say the fire "imploded" the building. Neither I nor anyone is arguing that it did. Proving that somehting no one is arguing, did not happen means nothing. The official story is that the plane hit the building smashing through the load bearing outer walls. The building shifted as it was supposed to, but was less strong. In the resulting fire some beams that had the insulation knocked off in the impact(and suffered damage in the impact) heated enough to fail(they don't have to melt to fail). This caused the upper 30+ stories to fall onto the 70th floor, which then collapsed into the next floor, which then collapsed into the next, all the way down. That that is how it physically fell is on tape for the world to see. If you have anything to dispute it lets discuss it.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No thompson, I do not. You appear to be saying that your mind is closed to any further discussion no matter what the facts. It depends very much on how fast the energy was released and where, and the specific locations of energy release. In broad general terms it is a meaningless number. It is clearly meaningless to you because you choose to make it so not because it is actually meaningless. Its not just BTUS that are involved, Really....just what else is involved? thats why I think your question is meaningless. You are leaving out the potential energy of the upper 30stories, as well as the force from the impact. Are you saying that potential energy and force cannot have a btu value? I understand that you are t rying to make a silly argument, I have not made an argument yet so how can you understand something I have not done? Are you saying that you are a mind reader and know my most secret thoughts? knowing full well that the 2 numbers will be very different, and then trying to say it shows some sort of something. I have said this a couple of times...until I know what I am talking about I would rather collect information.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:43:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 If you have no Data or evidence that the official story is false, why do you assert that it is? luckydog1; I am a cynic and until I can prove the governments story is true I will consider it questionable. thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:47:03 PM)
Thompson, I keep asking you for a fact. Force is measured in Newtons, they do not convert to BTUs. As I keep saying the force of the impact and the potential energy of the upper part( above the impact point) of the building also matter. Yes, I am saying that Force and potential force do not have BTUS, so does every scientist in the world. The damage from hitting something with a hammer is not the heat relased in the impact, it is the newtons of force transfered. But you are not just collecting information.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 5:49:25 PM)
I consider it questionable also, but every question I have heard You, Real, et all ask has been total nonsense. I have been interested in this since day 1, and have concluded that the offical story is true. Planes hitting the towers brought them down. If you have any evidence to the contrary lets see it.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 7:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I consider it questionable also, but every question I have heard You, Real, et all ask has been total nonsense. I have been interested in this since day 1, and have concluded that the offical story is true. Planes hitting the towers brought them down. If you have any evidence to the contrary lets see it. luckydog1: This is why it is soooooo difficult to have a discussion with you.I am seeking information and you just want to call me names and argue. You are not interested in learning anything or discussing anything. You seem to be only interested in beating your chest and telling people how stupid they are if they do not agree with you. Tell you what ....how about you go do that with someone else...ok? thompson

subrob1967 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 9:01:46 PM)
A fully loaded 767 holds 23,980 gallons of fuel, can someone please explain to me how 8,600 gallons of gasoline could drop a section of I-80, which by the way, was built to withstand earthquakes, and 28,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashing between the 93rd and 99th floors. and then the 78th thru the 85th floors wasn't enough to collapse 2 110 story buildings?

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 9:21:42 PM)
Thompson, but you are not just seeking information. You have already admitted you disbelieve the official story because of your ideology. I ask you for any evidence and you have none, except that your ideology demands that it be a lie. Teach me something, if you have anything. I explained why your question has no bearing, the price of tea in 1876 has nothing to do with the towers falling either. If you have nothing to add to the conversation but insults, quit talking to me. You did come up and engage me in this discussion. If you have anything other than your ideology to indicate the official story is a lie, lets discuss it. So far you have put up squat. I called no one stupid, I called Real a liar, because he was telling a lie, specifically that the towers fell nice and neatly.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 10:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Thompson, but you are not just seeking information. Is this some more of your mind reading talent? You have already admitted you disbelieve the official story because of your ideology. I believe I said the same thing you did ....(I consider it questionable also) is a direct quote from you in post #191 Does this mean that we share the same ideology? I ask you for any evidence and you have none, except that your ideology demands that it be a lie. Perhaps you might tell me where you get this from? Teach me something, if you have anything. I explained why your question has no bearing No you have not. You have only told me that you do not care to hear anything that you do not agree with, not why. You are long on bombast and short on logic, the price of tea in 1876 has nothing to do with the towers falling either. If you have nothing to add to the conversation but insults, Perhaps you might tell me which insults you speak of? quit talking to me. You did come up and engage me in this discussion. I was under the impression that these boards were open to anyone. If you have anything other than your ideology to indicate the official story is a lie, lets discuss it. So far you have put up squat. I have asked for nothing except information you have offered nothing but opinion. I called no one stupid Perhaps you should read what you post before you sign your name to it. I called Real a liar, because he was telling a lie, specifically that the towers fell nice and neatly.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 10:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 A fully loaded 767 holds 23,980 gallons of fuel, can someone please explain to me how 8,600 gallons of gasoline could drop a section of I-80, How big of a section did it drop and how long did it take and how was the gasoline applied? which by the way, was built to withstand earthquakes Would these be the same earthquakes the WTC was designed to withstand? and 28,000 gallons of jet fuel, crashing between the 93rd and 99th floors. and then the 78th thru the 85th floors wasn't enough to collapse 2 110 story buildings? What were the structural failures on the section of I 80 vs. the structural failures in the WTC? If you are going to ask me questions please give me enough data to solve the problem. thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/16/2007 11:25:54 PM)
No, thompson, in your question you posed a false assumption(2 actually). Perhaps you do not recognize that you did. I was quite specific in explaining it was not only the heat from the jet fuel that caused the building to fall, you tried to slip a 3rd false assumption in later claiming it 'imploded', therefore your question was not relevant. Also the potential BTUs in the jet fuel have nothing to do with explosive force, which you accept the results form the Brain trusts guestimates on. Please tell me somehting based in reality, I would love to hear it, and actually discuss it. You have demonstrated that you are simply unable to....

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 9:19:03 AM)
I've got a challenge for those who do not believe the official story. Lay out the timeline of the entire operation to bring down the towers as you believe it happened. Give enough details on the means employed to let me investigate your claims. Also provide links to any evidence in support of your claims. I will disqualify any use of links to videos as evidence. I want text that I can quote and send on to specialists if I want further information. A special note, using eyewitness quotes of the "excited utterance" variety from the day of 9/11 is not going be terribly useful. Also claiming aircraft did not actually strike at least one Tower is a non starter, too many people saw and video taped the second impact.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 9:51:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I've got a challenge for those who do not believe the official story. Lay out the timeline of the entire operation to bring down the towers as you believe it happened. Give enough details on the means employed to let me investigate your claims. Also provide links to any evidence in support of your claims. I will disqualify any use of links to videos as evidence. I want text that I can quote and send on to specialists if I want further information. A special note, using eyewitness quotes of the "excited utterance" variety from the day of 9/11 is not going be terribly useful. Also claiming aircraft did not actually strike at least one Tower is a non starter, too many people saw and video taped the second impact. 1) ok from the begining establish: what is the official story, (conspiracy theory)? 2) video's can be transribed into text. Unless you are implying trained firemen/emt workers cannot think/speak under pressure. 3) Who are the specialists? 4) government excuses will be regarded as fraud.

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 10:54:00 AM)
Just to spell it out, You claim the towers were brought down by something besides the afterefects of crashing airliners into them. Tell me who, what, when, where and how. I'm not watching video and transcribing period. If I need an expert opinion to refute something you claim I'm not asking that person to watch a video. Present text or admit you can't and stop bothering people with this. I will choose specialistsI know and trust the opinions of. If I do resort to an outside expert I will supply their credentials unless you want to reveal identifying information about yourself that is all you'll get. Statements made in the heat of the moment are not terribly reliable. That has been demonstrated time and again.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875