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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

If you  have no Data or evidence that the official story is false, why do you assert that it is?

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.

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.

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

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.