Which one is it ?
Innacurate/ incomplete or LIES ??
Make up your mind.
The great University of Purdue is not the latest member of W's Web of Deception
priceless :missingte
You want to take you serious? not possible
Does anyone close to you take you serious?
:monsters-
hey goofy you do know that these purdue findings have been debunked in regards to it's prevelence to the truth movement don't you?
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm
I like it :banger:
but how about a few more shots at the conspiracy fringe loonies. We need more balance.
:toast:
Then let me help provide one.Still nothing on how a fire caused a building to topple when a large portion of the fuel escaped upon impact. Perhaps someone can come along and say something like "only 10% of the fuel escaped during impact and the large fire ball made it seem like more since jet fuel expands when it is ignited..." I would respect something like that. But I have read nothing of the sort. I have yet to read an explanation of how a fire could bring down a building when so much fuel appeard to escape.
:toast:
Then let me help provide one.
To start with, remember that it's structural damage + fires that brought down the buildings together. The first thing to know is that the second plane was going far faster than the first plane did when it hit, thus hitting with more kinetic energy which = more structural damage to the building. Also, although some angles make it look like the plane just hit the corner of the building, it really didn't, although it wasn't the dead on hit that the first plane was. We have more shots of the second plane hitting and of the fireball that came after, but there was a decent sized fireball too after the first plane hit. Also important is that the jet fuel itself only started the fires that lead to the collapse. Although more fuel was lost in the second impact, there was still more than enough left to do the job of starting the fires. And also very important is the fact that the building had less fireproofing that the other one did (about half the amount). And since the impact occured at a lower point, there was far more weight bearing down on the damaged/fire heated section.
Lots of factors to consider.
All the video I saw showed the jet fuel being expelled outside the building as the plane hit at an angle in a corner. I don't see how you can say it didn't hit the corner.
Granted, it wasn't exactly on the edge of the corner but the force of the plane caused the jet fuel to be expelled out the other side.
In regards to structural damage, the plane didn't hit the center of the building and that's where the building collapsed. There wasn't enough damage from the plane at that part of the building to cause a collapse.
These fuckin retards could have every college and university from Harvard to UCLA back the goverment report and they still would cry conspiracy.