Watch the news - B777 missing

[Akzle]

No, lets stay with the big two that were hit by jet airliners.

No, the vast majority would not have burnt off in the first few seconds. Even if that were physically possible (which it isn't), assuming a half full fuel tank, you're talking about the release of 700 billion joules of energy in a few seconds (which, ironically, would easy explain those two building collapsing, although it would have been quite quick).

so the fuel tanks remained in tact?

Assuming they didnt, what environmental condition would have prevented the fuel immediately igniting? Since there was fire all over the place. And shit.

[imdying]

Why not stay with Building 7?

It was never hit by anything other than debris from the collapsing tower - which only caused localised damage.

It was never fueled by jetfuel - only by office supplies and furniture.

Yet it collapsed uniformly at freefall speed straight down into it's footprint.

Demolition experts could only hope for as good an outcome.

Because one conspiracy at a time, the big one. Because my interest in even that one is fleeting at best. Because the most basic physics refutes your proposition that all the fuel burnt out in the first few seconds. Because if you can't even get that right, why even bother with the other tower, let alone any other buildings.

[bogan]

No, lets stay with the big two that were hit by jet airliners.

No, the vast majority would not have burnt off in the first few seconds. Even if that were physically possible (which it isn't), assuming a half full fuel tank, you're talking about the release of 700 billion joules of energy in a few seconds (which, ironically, would easy explain those two building collapsing, although it would have been quite quick).

I think building 7 is the one to look at, the 'excuses' for the towers arrived, and so we can plausibly think the planes took out both towers. But why did the one that wasn't hit fall down? did its 'excuse' not arrive or is its fall as plausible as the two towers for other reasons?

So there is a question for each side, why did it fall down? or why did it need to?

[Katman]

No, the vast majority would not have burnt off in the first few seconds. Even if that were physically possible (which it isn't).....

If a tank full of thousands of gallons of fuel was ignited while still contained within a confined area then the surface of the fuel would burn for a considerable time.

However, if a fuel tank ruptures and sprays thousands of gallons of fuel into the air, and is ignited, it will burn the vast majority in a matter of seconds.

[imdying]

I think building 7 is the one to look at, the 'excuses' for the towers arrived, and so we can plausibly think the planes took out both towers. But why did the one that wasn't hit fall down? did its 'excuse' not arrive or is its fall as plausible as the two towers for other reasons?

So there is a question for each side, why did it fall down? or why did it need to?

Conspiracy theorists whip themselves into a frenzy based on collections of misinformation ranging from minor warping of the facts to complete and utter bullshit. Seems logical to start with the utter bullshit. If that supposed fact can't be backed up, why even bother with the rest of it.

[imdying]

If a tank full of thousands of gallons of fuel was ignited while still contained within a confined area then the surface of the fuel would burn for a considerable time.

However, if a fuel tank ruptures and sprays thousands of gallons of fuel into the air it will ignite and burn the vast majority in a matter of seconds.

I've seen the footage, it was propelled into a confined space at a few hundred miles per hour.... next.

[Katman]

I've seen the footage, it was propelled into a confined space at a few hundred miles per hour.... next.

So what do you think the massive fireballs were?

(And it was actually propelled into a couple of open plan floors.)

[bogan]

Conspiracy theorists whip themselves into a frenzy based on collections of misinformation ranging from minor warping of the facts to complete and utter bullshit. Seems logical to start with the utter bullshit. If that supposed fact can't be backed up, why even bother with the rest of it.

Yeh, but just cos spanners with misinformation get all amongst it doing perhaps more harm than good for their cause; doesn't mean the big points can't still be valid. And a building falling down by itself seems a much bigger and more addressable point than going over how much fuel, how fast it burned, and what said energy would have done.

[imdying]

So what do you think the massive fireballs were?

They were big, but less than a fifth of the volume of fuel on board, which is actually just more simple math.

I was wrong about the amount of fuel on board. Assuming official sources are accurate, by a factor of 2. So now we're actually up closer to 1.4 trillion joules of energy (NZ trillion).

[imdying]

Yeh, but just cos spanners with misinformation get all amongst it doing perhaps more harm than good for their cause; doesn't mean the big points can't still be valid. And a building falling down by itself seems a much bigger and more addressable point than going over how much fuel, how fast it burned, and what said energy would have done.

Unlike most of what I've read on here, those things are actually measurable quantifiable facts. I don't see any point going down the rabbit hole until those things can be addressed.

[Katman]

They were big, but less than a fifth of the volume of fuel on board, which is actually just more simple math.

I was wrong about the amount of fuel on board. Assuming official sources are accurate, by a factor of 2. So now we're actually up closer to 1.4 trillion joules of energy (NZ trillion).

That still says nothing about Building 7 though.

What did you think fueled Building 7's fires again?

[Ocean1]

Yeh, but just cos spanners with misinformation get all amongst it doing perhaps more harm than good for their cause; doesn't mean the big points can't still be valid.

But Occam's razor say's they're much less likely to be valid. So the dying dude is right, if the first events can be seen as having a common cause then it's far more likely that later events have a related cause.

[imdying]

That still says nothing about Building 7 though.

What did you think fueled Building 7's fires again?

Because one conspiracy at a time, the big one. Because my interest in even that one is fleeting at best. Because the most basic physics refutes your proposition that all the fuel burnt out in the first few seconds. Because if you can't even get that right, why even bother with the other tower, let alone any other buildings.

[imdying]

If anyone has any interest in math, the explosion calculations are actually really interesting, appear well researched and cited, and I'd recommend looking at them.

[Katman]

Because one conspiracy at a time, the big one.

We certainly can deal with the little one first.

Because if you can't explain the collapse of Building 7 with any degree of logic then the whole events of that day have to be viewed with skepticism.

If Building 7 was brought down by explosives it opens a whole can of worms for every other event on that day.