Would it make any sense for the firemen to assemble in an area blasted by fire and still smelling of victims and jet fuel?
Thus making the case for the lobby of the North Tower having NOT been blasted by a jet-fuel explosion.
and from a previous post So the lobby(s) of the towers were allegedly damaged by jet fuel explosions. why no evidence of there having been any jet fuel involved in the damage to the lobbies?
I'm sorry, but your opinions about PM are not the subject of this thread. Maybe you'd like to start your own thread about how you feel Popular Mechanics has been unfair to the "truth" movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKXfLSVdHpQ This is one of many videos that includes the bit where the firefighters assemble in the north tower lobby.
1:15 " I walked into the lobby and right to my right there was two people, burning." 1:55 (after showing soot, broken marble and blown out windows) "the lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby" 2:00 "Flaming jet fuel had shot straight down the elevator shaft" 2:09 Shot of smoke hanging in the air and burns on the walls. Your own link disproves your claim. You didn't watch it, did you? Just believed what someone told you without research.
You linked to a video you think was edited to disprove you? Hilarious! Smoke, soot on the walls, witnesses talking about the smell of jet fuel in the air, fireballs coming out of the elevator shafts ... this is the evidence in your linked video. How do these things add up to 'bombs'?
I want people to get it, in that the talking on the video doesn't match up with what is observed, do YOU see any evidence that there was a jet-fuel fire in the lobby? also, Please feel free to check this guys numbers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8 How much energy could you expect to get out of the quantity of jet fuel that was estimated to have been involved in the destruction of either tower?
Obviously you have an opinion, and that is that, have you checked out the video about the heat value available from burning jet-fuel? What do you think?
in the Video relating to the heat available from jet fuel, the scientist giving the presentation specifically focused on air temperature rise.
His premise is: "Did jet fuel melt the steel" The steel didn't melt, and melting steel was not cited as reason for collapse, so: his premise is bogus.
However, in the video he presents a case for there not even being enough heat available, ( that is relative to the various masses involved) to raise even the air temperature to a significant level. Do you get that bit?
The air temperature had nothing to do with the collapse, either. So ... you admit all of his premises are false ones?
From the OP: "...According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." This individual has no idea how holograms work, nor their limitations. Holograms cannot be projected to hide something, nor can they projected into the sky in daylight. I've watched the footage frame by frame and I saw no 'cigar-shaped missile'. This individual has been making up Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) since he was fired from MI5 for breaking the Official Secrets Act, so I wouldn't give him much weight.
What I'm amazed at is they think all the people who grabbed cameras and took photos and video that day were either in on the plot,or too dang stupid to understand what they saw.
