The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Absolutely. A fuel-air explosion in open air would be pretty devastating, but this was in the confined space of an elevator shaft.

Anyone who's seen a potato gun in action will understand the principle.

AH HA! A potato gun brought down the WTC!!!1!1!2!!

I have finally tricked you all into giving me the smoking (potato) gun!

:cool:
 
Eyewitnesses distinctly noted that the ground shaking explosions deep in the basements were more intense than the plane crashes. That also seems inconsistent with an elevator, relatively speaking.

folks on the ground floor were much closer to the ground floor...than the floors where the airplanes impacted. hence they felt the explosion of the fuel and/or elevator crashes much more.

:D
 
folks on the ground floor were much closer to the ground floor...than the floors where the airplanes impacted. hence they felt the explosion of the fuel and/or elevator crashes much more.

:D

Oh no doubt about that, but then again let's think about the kinetic force of an elevator falling versus 767s crashing at 500 miles per hour.

As I cited before, an elevator at the Empire State fell 75 floors and the occupant survived. Nobody is going to mistake an elevator for a large bomb. How exactly does an elevator in the basement create what was described as a war zone in the lobby by eyewitnesses?
 
Both people in the basement levels and and in the lobby were shaken, some off their feet. All involved reported these explosions were below them. No eyewitness reported this lower level explosions above them, therefore they were very deep in the sub-levels, possibly at the bottom.



Come on man. Prove I can't fly. Seriously?



In what way did I demonstrate a lack of comprehension of a simile? It's Latin, and it means likeness. I did not say "he said it looked like a bomb went off therefore a bomb went off". I'm really tired of dealing with what is obviously a lack of attention paid.

Then start paying some. No one else can do it for you.
 
Nobody is going to mistake an elevator for a large bomb.

Unless someone has experienced both events prior to 9/11, how could you make such a wild assumption?

I've heard a lot of different things explode as a firefighter...and I don't think I could hear something crash and claim, "oh, don't worry, that was just an elevator crashing."

How exactly does an elevator in the basement create what was described as a war zone in the lobby by eyewitnesses?

The elevator didn't, the exploding fuel did.
 
How exactly does an elevator in the basement create what was described as a war zone in the lobby by eyewitnesses?

more lovely analogies. that's not really a detailed, physical description, now is it?

my friend, there is high-quality video of the lobby of the first tower hit, only minutes after the impact.

the doors were not blown off. the walls were not on fire. the ceiling had not collapsed.
 
I don't need to be told that aluminum can glow. I'm aware that it can glow, but the available evidence doesn't suggest that it was aluminum.

And the available SCIENCE suggests that it could not, and was not, steel.

The evidence also suggests that it was not steel. Since you have no evidence of it. You have hearsay, and uneducated speculation.


Not only were no large pools of silvery liquid noted, which this aluminum would have become at some point, but people saw actual steel beams melting.

Citation needed.
 
Your writing is juvenile.

Says the guy who ignored me because I typed in big blue font.

I suspect it's because you sense the weakness of your argument.

I suspect there is another cause........



PSST......It's because YOU are too far down the rabiit hole to see the light of day.

An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings.

Bull ****. Watch the episode of Mythbusters called "Elevator of Death", or something like that.

Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings.

Argument from personal ignorance.

One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby.

Yepo. Because in reality, that is called a similie, or a comparison.

Do you understand what that means? Not that it would be that far off, since a fuel-air explosion was known to have plowed through there...


Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

And yours are consistant of having come out of your rear end. Or Gages, whichever.
 
Has that become the kind of argument tempesta29 defends the Truth, snicker, with? The "lobby is a war zone" therefore it was a momby-bomby bomb that made ze messy mess?

We are getting afraid, the Truth revolution is nigh.

Does tempesta29 really think he fools anybody but himself with his nonsense?
 
Oh no doubt about that, but then again let's think about the kinetic force of an elevator falling versus 767s crashing at 500 miles per hour.

Apples to apples, please. Elevator crashed at approx ground level, where it was felt by people at ground level.

Planes impacted towers high up. People on those floors felt the impact very violently, many of them were killed instantly.Many steel columns and floor pans were destroyed.And there were giant fireballs.

How many steel columns were destroyed by the elevator falling and the fuel/air explosion in the elevator shafts? None that we are aware of.
But a lot of glass was shattered, doors were blown open (path of least resistance) and such.

So, yes, the much larger kinetic energy of the planes was manifested as we would expect.
 
Has that become the kind of argument tempesta29 defends the Truth, snicker, with? The "lobby is a war zone" therefore it was a momby-bomby bomb that made ze messy mess?

We are getting afraid, the Truth revolution is nigh.

Does tempesta29 really think he fools anybody but himself with his nonsense?

I think he's stuck and has nowhere else to go. His pride would prevent him from admitting that he's just plain wrong.
 
Kerosene is not a high explosive. It is, however, highly incendiary. Whatever rocked people off their feet in the basement and lobby was not kerosene.

Bullflops.

First off, "highly incendiary" is not even a term used for kerosene.

However, a kerosene-air mixture, as Sunstealer has pointed out, is absolutely explosive. It's called a fuel-air explosion.

Go google that, and educate yourself.

PS. Flour can lead to a massive explosion, as can sugar, and most grains.

How is that possible? It's just a grain, right?

BZZZTTTT!!! Wrong!

Grain elevator explosions are incredibly intense, and VERY dangerous.

Go google that too. Educate yourself before you start pulling bull **** out of your posterior.
 
I think he's stuck and has nowhere else to go. His pride would prevent him from admitting that he's just plain wrong.

Isn't truther psychology interesting? But then I wonder.. why doesn't he simply leave? Well maybe it's just stubborn pride..
 
Bullflops.

First off, "highly incendiary" is not even a term used for kerosene.

However, a kerosene-air mixture, as Sunstealer has pointed out, is absolutely explosive. It's called a fuel-air explosion.

Go google that, and educate yourself.

PS. Flour can lead to a massive explosion, as can sugar, and most grains.

How is that possible? It's just a grain, right?

BZZZTTTT!!! Wrong!

Grain elevator explosions are incredibly intense, and VERY dangerous.

Go google that too. Educate yourself before you start pulling bull **** out of your posterior.

Here you are Tempesta,flour can explode. This link is very easy reading for the beginner. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/the-explosive-t/
 
First off, "highly incendiary" is not even a term used for kerosene.

However, a kerosene-air mixture, as Sunstealer has pointed out, is absolutely explosive. It's called a fuel-air explosion.

Tri is, of course given that he's an ex-fireman, correct.
"The vapor of this substance mixed with air is as explosive as gunpowder..."
Cooley, Le Roy Clark (1873). Elements of Chemistry: for Common and High Schools. Scribner, Armstrong. pp. 98, found at the Wikipedia page for kerosene.

It's explosiveness may not be spectacular relative to other fuels, and if the definition of "high explosive" is aimed towards separating substances like, say, C4 or TNT from something like kerosene, then that's a reasonable point. But to imply that it's not explosive enough to knock a person back, well... let's just remember that even a "low" explosive is still considered "explosive". As Wikipedia notes:
Explosives are classified as low or high explosives according to their rates of burn: low explosives burn rapidly (or deflagrate), while high explosives detonate.

And if I'm correct about this: Gunpowder burning is technically a "deflagration", but nobody disputes its ability to create sufficient pressures to move a bullet and pretty decent velocities. Just because something deflagrates doesn't mean it lacks power.
 
Last edited:
Bullflops.

First off, "highly incendiary" is not even a term used for kerosene.

However, a kerosene-air mixture, as Sunstealer has pointed out, is absolutely explosive. It's called a fuel-air explosion.

Go google that, and educate yourself.

PS. Flour can lead to a massive explosion, as can sugar, and most grains.

Grain elevator explosions are incredibly intense, and VERY dangerous.

Watched two documentaries in the last 2 days on exactly those subjects. Regular explosions in flour mills and storage silos, and a large oil tanker that blew in two (in San Francisco?) when intake of water ballast forced fumes onto an enclosed deck area in a flat calm. The first spark along sank the ship.
 

Back
Top Bottom