"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:KXDlg.35119$qD.16857@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

In

news:Xns97E76BA6D16B5thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,

John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:170620061833595423%erfc@netcabal.com,
Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com> typed:

Amanda Angelika <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only thing I can think of that might have

been capable

of disintegrating solid high tensile fire

resistant steel

that the WTCs were constructed of would have

been

anti-matter devices. IMO it's the only

explanation that

makes any sense.

Just give up thinking, it isn't working out for

you.

I used to think the conspiracy theories were

simply Islamic

propaganda and basically treacherous

anti-American/Us

government lies and simply concocted to spread

doubt,

disinformation and division.

Problem is though there are dozens of videos of

the events of

911 showing exactly what happened which leave many

unanswered

questions. Even structural engineers are unable to
satisfactorily explain why all those towers fell

as they did.

It would be high entertainment to see you try to

justify that

ignorant remark.

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/ncsea.htm

The article continues over 10 pages. There's a lot of

speculation in an

attempt to verify the official account, but

practically no hard and fast

definite conclusions.

After all they were not made of plastic wood and

cardboard

like some Hollywood set but a very strong high

tensile steel

framework.

There are no other examples apart from in

controlled

explosions for tall building totally collapsing as

a result of

fire and yet on 9/11 there were three buildings

that collapsed

in that way and one of them wasn't even hit by an

aeroplane.

There are examples of tall buildings collapsing

under their own

weight.

Though strangely none designed and built by competant

architects and

structural engineers and properly maintained to a

high standard.

There are no other examples of tall buildings being

turned into

torches with a hundred thousand pounds of jet fuel,

though.

Of course not you'd have problems getting a hundred

thousand pounds of jet

fuel into the air it was a passenger jet not the

Titanic. At most we are

talking a couple of thousand gallons, a considerable

amount of which would

have exploded and vaporised in the impact fireball

since the fuel tanks are

normally housed in the wings this is clearly evident

in video footage.

-- 
Amanda

Amanda you are ignorant of most of the facts.

The aircraft carried in the neighborhood of 22,000 lbs
of fuel (possibly JP8) JP8, JP6, JP4 all have a weight
of about 6.5 lbs per gal.

This gives us aprox. 3300 gals of fuel with a higher
flash point than gasoline.  A massive amount of liquid
fuel would not "vaporize" but would be splashed within
the building itself ( you can tell this happened by
viewing the film that shows the impact of the plane.
Burning liquid fuel is ejected out of the opposite side
from the crash point.

The amount of 3300 gal. is about 60 drums at 55 gals
each.  That is one hell of a lot of fuel to feed a
blaze.

I do not see how anyone that has seen the film of the
crashes can come to any conclusion other than the
planes were crashed into the building.

I do suppose that if one is ignorant enough one could
conclude any scenario that fits his/hers imagination
including the use of anti matter.

Wake up and learn something, if you cannot learn
something try to think just a bit even though it may
hurt your head.

H.