An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

[funk de fino]

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave.

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

1. go have a look at this link about Fuel Air bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

2. show us the detonations of the explosives you think were in the Twin Towers and exactly where you can hear them

3. you know this exactly how?

 

[T.A.M.]

Autopises establishes how persons died; Suffocation, smoke inhalation, knocked down by some debris or flying object, subject to en explosion, being shot, murdered with knife and so on. The victims in pentagon died in different ways - it was not a plane hitting them causing their deaths in most cases - and the exact causes are of interest to exclude a bomb explosion as cause.

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave.

Experts suggest what we saw at pentagon was a detonation caused by explosives and not a fire ball of jetfuel. http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 .

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

1. I thought you had left?

2, Your so called expert is a former Army artillery Officer. This may, MAY, qualify him to tell us what an explosive detonation looks like, but HOW ON GODS EARTH can he tell us what jetliner full of fuel impacting on concrete at 500mph should look like...hmmm???

3. The jet fuel was under pressure until the moment of impact. It then was whipped out and about at 500 mph. And now you are telling us based on the comments of a military artillery officer, that the explosion we saw at the Pentagon COULD NOT have come from a jet airliner full of fuel crashing there.

Yes indeed, another brilliant researcher.

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

1. I thought you had left?

3. The jet fuel was under pressure until the moment of impact. It then was whipped out and about at 500 mph. And now you are telling us based on the comments of a military artillery officer, that the explosion we saw at the Pentagon COULD NOT have come from a jet airliner full of fuel crashing there.

Yes indeed, another brilliant researcher.

TAM

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

 

[funk de fino]

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

3. have you seen fuel cells from aircraft before

2. you missed that one?

as for the rest of your diatribe, mentally challenged would best describe it, especially the "speed 0" part

you know there is a kind of superiority in europe about americans because of the rednecks and hicks and huge fat people we see on our television but when you see the amount of truthers who are europeans and the lack of intelligence that they constantly display i would place them below the very people from the states that they mock

its a very stereotypical view of the dumb fat yank (which if you ever go to manhattan is quite quickly dispelled) and one which is quite widespread but unfair

why? because at least the rednecks, hicks and fat people are not dishonest people, thats just the way they are, they dont pretend they are something they are not

most of the truthers are the most dishonest, unsociable, stupid and ignorant people you can ever come across as well as being the biggest set of cowards imaginable

ps did you have a look at the fuel air bomb llink?

 

[Zorglub]

Many persons in pentagon assume it was a detonation inside pentagon. The shock/heat wave proceeded through the corridors far away from the impact point. It would not have happened with a plane crashing into the ground floor releasing jet fuel.

FFS stop reffering to anonymous groups of people you claim support your theory. Provide a link or name them directly. And you cannot refer to "internet" as your primary source of evidence.

 

[beachnut]

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

3. No, the combustible jet fuel was not under any pressure inside the tanks. It was just resting there, like inside any other fuel container. The walls of this container was made of aluminium of various thickness depending on location. Some walls had other purposes, e.g. being wings to fly on.

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken) at high speed - 500 mph - and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0. And then it ignites. No fuel spills out on the outside lawn through the big hole in the wall made by the containers. Only papers blown out through the windows are seen on the lawn (and some parts of a parked helicopter that blow up on the outside). I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains. The inside of pentagon should therefore be full of soot. But all fire fighters messing around in the debris remain pretty clean. Photos show destroyed but CLEAN rooms. No greasy soot. My interpretation of the photo evidence is that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot) and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher. FBI really needs some outside help. Some fire fighters reported they found passengers strapped into seats in pentagon and told this to the media ... but when FBI arrived they didn't find them or the seats. This is paranormal. Probably an inside job. No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

It is called water. Your statement is moronic, your research capabilities proven nil by this very post. Keep up the lies of 9/11 truth with your posts and you will be relegated to the fringe nut case cause of 9/11 truth, which should be "9/11 Lies buy Nuts"

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, you see what you get with a plane doing 473 KIAS. Sadly you are unable to reason and think rationally about 9/11 and make up fiction like this post. What a bunch of silly tripe, you are so disgusting making up stuff about my fellow soldiers and my fellow citizens killed on 9/11. Thanks so much for taking the time to be disrespectful, I hope I can do the same for you.

 

[T.A.M.]

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

Yes I found it rather strange that he thinks the gas just sits there...lol

TAM

 

[Corsair 115]

No, jet fuel is not explosive - it is a combustible. It burns much slower than real explosives and causes a rather slow shock wave. Not even jet fuel gases mixed with air (used in jet engines) are explosive - they burn fast but not as fast as explosives that detonate causing a very fast shockwave.

Gee, then why is it in the numerous film and video available of aircraft crashes — be they civilian aviation accidents or crashes at air shows — do the impacts make for some impressive and sometimes spectacular explosions?

Note the difference with WTC - no detonation when the plane impacts - just a fire ball. Real detonations are heard when the towers fall - a clear sign of controlled demolition.

Really? On which video of the collapse do you hear clear sounds of demolition charges going off? I ask because I suspect you're the only one hearing such noises.

There was a video of the collapse taken by a doctor not far from the towers. I can't recall if he captured both collapses on his camcorder, but he definitely caught the second collapse. He had gone down to the WTC area that day to help in the treatment of the injured. As the second collapse started, he caught it on his camera, then at the last moment, ducked behind a parked car as the dust cloud came pouring over and around him. His camera was on the entire time, including afterwards. It's a single long, unbroken shot.

The thing which struck me about this video was the noise of the collapse - it was a loud, continuous roar, sort of like the rumble of a freight train. There was definitely NO sounds of anything like the distinct, sharp sounds of explosive charges going off. Just a long, continuous rumble as the building crashed to the ground.

I can't recall the name of the doctor, but his footage and his story aired on CNN either the first or second day after 9/11.

 

[Heiwa]

you know there is a kind of superiority in europe about americans because of the rednecks and hicks and huge fat people we see on our television but when you see the amount of truthers who are europeans and the lack of intelligence that they constantly display i would place them below the very people from the states that they mock

its a very stereotypical view of the dumb fat yank (which if you ever go to manhattan is quite quickly dispelled) and one which is quite widespread but unfair

why? because at least the rednecks, hicks and fat people are not dishonest people, thats just the way they are, they dont pretend they are something they are not

most of the truthers are the most dishonest, unsociable, stupid and ignorant people you can ever come across as well as being the biggest set of cowards imaginable.

Maybe you have a point at last? Anyway, one American told me once a long time ago: "Under the American system, officers and officials are free to make their opinions known to their superiors - up to the point where policy is definitely decided. After that everybody is expected to support policy to the best of his/her ability."
You are trying hard, but you are not convincing. You are not fighting for peace, freedom and justice. You are just defending policy.

 

[Heiwa]

1. how does the fuel get moved around the tanks then Einstein?

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

 

[Heiwa]

Gee, then why is it in the numerous film and video available of aircraft crashes — be they civilian aviation accidents or crashes at air shows — do the impacts make for some impressive and sometimes spectacular explosions?

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning. No magic.

 

[Corsair 115]

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning. No magic.

You have a peculiar defintion of explosion. Or you have seen little footage of actual aircraft crashes.

What about the supposed noises of demolition charges going off during the collapse? Are you going to support that claim of yours with some evidence?

 

[funk de fino]

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

oh really, one pump to move it from a tank to the engines? and the pump does not pressurise it?

how many tanks are on one of these airliners? and again have you seen one?

how do we get it from tank to tank and then to the engine?

who said it did not spill out? and who said it penetrated the wall?

why did you not look at the fuel air bomb site and comment on the explosions they give you?

 

[funk de fino]

You are trying hard, but you are not convincing. You are not fighting for peace, freedom and justice. You are just defending policy.

I am not fighting for anything, i am merely pointing out your lies and mistakes

show me where i am defending any policy?

and before you start i am not american

and you are fighting for nothing, you are posting on an internet site the same as me, except you are a coward who will do nothing else about your dishonest and disgusting claims

 

[stateofgrace]

Thanks for calling me a brilliant researcher.

It was a P*** take, not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Belz...]

1. I am still around in the cyber space.

People still call it that ?

The interesting thing is that this or these containers then allegedly penetrated a solid, reinforced concrete wall (OK, it is full of windows some of which the panes are not broken)

Heiwa, it's getting to be very depressing how truthers fail to make the slightest amount of research in 9/11-related fields. Why don't you do some looking around or googling in high-speed impacts and ballistics ?

and spills out the fuel just inside at speed 0.

Now, what in the blue hell's name makes you think it has a speed of zero ? The fuel is going at the same speed as the plane.

I would of course have expected that some jet fuel would also would have blown out on the lawn and burnt there but ... paranormally ... all fuel remained inside.

Paranormally ? That's because you have no idea what you're talking about. Why would the fuel blow out on the lawn when it just exploded into a fireball ?

When jet fuel burns in open air it produces black smoke full of greasy soot and this soot attaches to walls and what remains.

Only when it burns slowly, Heiwa. Gosh.

My interpretation of the photo evidence is...

...Irrelevant

that most damages were caused by an explosive device that detonated inside the building at locally very high temperature (no greasy soot)

That doesn't even make any sense. Since when are explosive devices "hot" ?

and that remaining damages were caused by the hot shock wave expanding through corridors and normal fires of furniture and interior wooden walls, doors, etc. No jet fuel.

What about the smell of jet fuel reported ?

FBI really needs some outside help.

Yeah, the FBI needs help from people who don't know squat about anything.

This is paranormal. Probably an inside job.

Non sequitur.

 

[Belz...]

It remains there under no pressure. When you need it, a pump moves it to the engines. Similar to a car. No magic there. The mystery is how the fuel in its fragile tank penetrates a concrete wall without spilling out.

It did spill out.

You are just defending policy.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you have any evidence of your claims ? Or are you just going to use insults, from now on ?

They are not detonations. Just fuel spilling out and burning.

Yeah. Burning VERY rapidly. Explosively so. What's your definition of an explosion ?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Here's a question Heiwa, since I didn't quite understand your stance: Was it, in your opinion a) pre-planted explosives, or b) a missile that hit the Pentagon?

 

[Heiwa]

Here's a question Heiwa, since I didn't quite understand your stance: Was it, in your opinion a) pre-planted explosives, or b) a missile that hit the Pentagon?

Based on observations of damages and lack of jet fuel I would suggest the explosive charges were pre-planted on the outside of the E wall directed inwards. But there could have been more charges, e.g. at the C wall. A missile is too complicated (how/where from to launch it?). Keep it simple.

So no plane flying in low over the lawn! It was only a deception to explain the explosion.

 

[funk de fino]

Based on observations of damages and lack of jet fuel I would suggest the explosive charges were pre-planted on the outside of the E wall directed inwards. But there could have been more charges, e.g. at the C wall. A missile is too complicated (how/where from to launch it?). Keep it simple.

So no plane flying in low over the lawn! It was only a deception to explain the explosion.

How do you direct these charges inwards?

Who planted them and when?

How does this explain the smell of jetfuel that people in the Pentagon sensed?

Where did the plane go that over 100 people seen?

You have still completely ignored the Fuel Air bomb link I gave you, why is this?