Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ Was this fire started by a 450,000 lb airplane crashing through the building?

Sorry - but I think in your attempt to appear knowledgeable and cool you have misunderstood something. Tower 7, this is referring. You know, the one that had a professional demolition done on it, that the owner tried to get a double insurance payment from, that only had a couple of fires in it burning at relatively low temperatures, had no accelerant, and then, after the owner told the fire chief to "pull it", referring to group of firemen, collapsed in a free fall exactly as a demo'd building does. You know, the one that the BBC said had collapsed whilst it was still behind the reporter? The one that the fire crew and most people near too it said they heard explosive charges sheering the steel structure. The one that was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report? The one that, and this might blow your mind, was not hit by an air plane.

... WTC 7 suffered extensive structural damage when the nearby Towers fell and there were multiple fires that burned unchecked on multiple floors for hours before the building finally collapsed.

....according to the official FEMA report: "WTC 7contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor." - FEMA report

The official report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

You..say that the sound of explosions proves that WTC was purposefully demolished but you seem to ignore what happens when a building full of transformers is allowed to burn for 7 hours...

Ya got it wrong again!

There was NO building full of transformers, there were some, but you exaggerate, and the thing is they didn't explode, if they did, they would have blown outwards on each of those floors mentioned, SEPARATELY.

There were no multiple fires burning unchecked large enough to cause any more than what's known as office fires, papers and furniture and so on that the firefighters were ordered not to put out, and the buildings sprinkler system disabled.

There was no internal structural damage that could cause WTC & to collapse in sympathy for WTC 1 and 2, there was surface facade damage only on one side.

The only way that building could have collapsed the way it did would be if the core and surrounding structural columns were cut, blown out or otherwise weakened at their bases almost simultaneosly.

That is what happened, you can see the top penthouse falling inwards into the building as the core columns blew first, then the surround columns went as WTC 7 fell.

So, the place didn't collapse from the effect of multiple fires, nor from exploding transformers.

WTC 7 got "pulled", as ordered by Larry Silverstein.

What you CAN'T see is the basement damage caused by tower 1&2 debris pushing against it many floors below ground while it was being weakened by the fires and after much of the support structures were damaged by same.

That's also why the fire fighters, many of whom had already been killed or injured when the first buildings came down, making less of them available and not wanting to risk more lives on a lost cause, were pulled and the sprinklers shut off because the building was already lost to damage and they needed the water pressure and fire fighters to fight other fires more important and there was massive water line damage from the buildings that already collapsed.

Originally Posted by terry57

Another point concerning what happens on the fire ground when the shit hits the fans.

The public don't have a clue as there running as fast as they can in the opposite direction.

All they see is big flames, hear loud noises and see flashing lights.

When the towers where hit they all ran away at warp speed whilst the professionals ran into the fire storm.

You're obviously aren't a firefighter, and never were. You were just the union man and probably washed trucks,... Terry.

You don't even know that explosions that show flashing lights ARE fires, as are all combustion explosions.

The public ran as did the firemen when the towers exploded.

Professional firemen don't run into firestorms, idiot.

They move away from them, safety first. Then regroup to fight the fire. Make sense to you?

A high rise tower fire like the WTC fires can only be tackled from inside, so small crews were sent in separately, and only one or two men went ahead of each group to estimate the fire before others followed to fight it.

The firefighters that got killed at WTC that day were largely killed by falling debris, as the fires were extinguished within an hour of initial aircraft impact.

There was no firestorm ya liar.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

What you CAN'T see is the basement damage caused by tower 1&2 debris pushing against it many floors below ground while it was being weakened by the fires and after much of the support structures were damaged by same.

....the sprinklers shut off because the building was already lost to damage and they needed the water pressure and fire fighters to fight other fires more important and there was massive water line damage from the buildings that already collapsed.

What a load of cobblers!

What basement damage at WTC7? Where? Any references?

The preposterous idea that a load of twin tower debris piled into the basement of WTC7 is total nonsense.

Some flying debris from the twin towers impacted the south wall of WTC7, but NONE went snakeing off underground to damage the columns of WTC7.

Are you trying to say that the debris you're on about somehow did a co-ordinated and simultaneous attack on all the core columns of WTC7 hours AFTER WTC1 and 2 exploded?

The sprinklers shut off due to power failure and lack of water pressure in the city supply due to the WTC1 and 2 demolitions, well before any fires started at WTC7.

Fires on floors #7,8, 9, 11 and 13 of WTC7 only.

Do you realise that black smoke during fires comes from incomplete combustion, so low temperatures and/or lack of air, as in an enclosed environment, as you can see in many of the WTC fires on 9/11.

So the temperatures in those fires couldn't reach any where higher than between 200 < 500C, and it takes around 12ooC to melt steel, so no, there was no basement nor upper storey fire that collapsed WTC7 nor WTC1 and 2 either.

Also, jet fuel, kerosene , petrol and diesel fires can't generate the necessary temperatures to melt steel

UNLESS ASSISTED BY OTHER ACCELERANTS and/or AN ARTIFICIALLY BOOSTED AIR SUPPLY.

Yes in the very same doco mentioned it was stated that there was severe structural damage in the basement of WTC7 which lead to them abandoning the building to fire..

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by Gilbert

They would not have fallen with out the charges because basically that defies physics and basic 101 engineering.

..... quoting from a book maybe but know nothing of the real life situation on the fire ground.

I have witnessed personally the pancake effect in building collapse where supporting girders are effected and weakened by fire.

For the layman its unbelievable but for the professional its an ever present risk when dealing with fire ground situations.

Any front line professional will tell you that fire and steel girders do not make for a safe environment. A fire fighters worst nightmare having to enter into that enviroment.

As a matter of fact the vast majority of fire fighters who die are caught in this very scenario hence why a smart commander will only send his men into that environment if there is life involvement.

What a total load of complete bollix and tripe!


You contradict yerself all the time ya stupid Ocker berk.

In another post which I referred to in my reply to yours (above) you reckoned that only the firefighters were brave enough to charge off into a firestorm,....idiot.

And the vast majority of firefighters DONT get caught up in a scenario you just described, because they DON'T do what you claimed happened on 9/11!

The leading cause of fatalities of firefighters is heart attack (44%),

How about that? Ya gotta be fit to be a firefighter, stress is the biggest killer!

followed by
trauma (27%),
Which can mean blunt force injury from falling debris to deep tissue injury etc.

motor vehicle collisions (20-25%)
That's understandable if they're in a rush getting anywhere.

asphixia and burns (20%).
Those would be the fit younger front-liners, as...

Asphixia and burns generally affect firefighters under 35 years of age more than stress or heart attacks, whereas the opposite is true for firefighters over 35 years of age.

Volunteer firefighters account for 85% of en route fatalities.!!!!

In the past decade, fatalities during training have risen to 6%.
About 8% of fatalities occur at incidents with more than one LODD.

So the vast majority of firefighters die from two leading non-combustion related causes, heart failure and MVAs, a total of 64 < 69%.
More than two thirds of the men, the majority, literally die from stress related actions, not from collapsed steel framed building fires which will cause traumatic injury and asphixia.

Trauma and asphixia as cause of death due to steel framed buildings collapsing can only account for less than one third of lives lost in line of duty.

Time and again when you go through the lists, you'll find firefighter deaths in building collapse is from either walls roofs, ceilings or floors giving way, and you'd be hard put to find any deaths listed due to the collapse of a steel framed building, let alone one pancaking, as they never do.

Excerpts and statistics above taken from;
Line of Duty Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Yes in the very same doco mentioned it was stated that there was severe structural damage in the basement of WTC7 which lead to them abandoning the building to fire..

It's no use just saying that someone said that in a doco, please give a reference to it that we may all see/read it and evaluate the information presented there for ourselves.

Thanks.

You have the brass to request references when you NEVER produce any when asked? That figures..

When was that Flo? I give references continually in my posts.

I take it then that you can't back up your claims. Thought so.

I can't believe you spent all that time uploading and posting those plane crash photos on the last page, ENT. They were LOW-SPEED crashes, you dork.
Planes and other objects behave completely differently at high speed.
Even if you say it was not going at 550 mph, it was still accelerated into the building.

High or low speed, they all disintegrate at the same points, they break apart and don't fold their wings neatly alongside themselves then vaporize, pedant.

Now since you think you're the expert, by what criteria do you think that those pics were of low speed crashes?


And as a matter of comparison, at what speed do you claim an airliner crashed into the Pentagon?

As a matter of fact, most of those airliner prangs depicted were at high speed, at around 200mph, and upwards.

200 is not a particularly high speed. We've already shown you pics and links of what happens to planes at high speed.

You go round and round in circles....like the windmills in your mind.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I can't believe you spent all that time uploading and posting those plane crash photos on the last page, ENT. They were LOW-SPEED crashes, you dork.
Planes and other objects behave completely differently at high speed.
Even if you say it was not going at 550 mph, it was still accelerated into the building.

500mph? Is that your estimate? That's 804.672 k/h!!! Wow!!!

At sea level?

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Giltard, you are going from dumb to dumber.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

tinfoil hat

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

a 3rd grader

Dear me - best I stay out of this section actually. I did not quite know that is was the home of people who only resort to insults and try to invoke slanging matches. Poor show.

Don't worry mate, there's a few of those Sepos and wannabe sepo brown nosers trying to score medals from unca Sam for defending the honour (what's left of it) of the good ol' usa.

Glad you noticed that they habitually indulge in name calling, whenever they get caught out or lose an argument or quite simply, whenever they can't think of what to say!!

How about people like you, ENT, who got jailed in this forum last year after you repeatedly insulted my wife ? Eh ? You dirty hypocrite. And that was only ONE of the times you got jailed.
This is the creature you are hitching along with, Dilbert.

Originally Posted by ENT

Can't think outside the square, can't see the bigger picture, pedant?

The best part of you official story addicts is the claim you all make that those planes you imagined were all flyin at around 500mph ASL < 1,000ft without any problem whatsoever!

Nobody has ever stated that that plane did not have problems. Planes cannot SUSTAIN flight at that speed at low levels. But that one was on a one-way mission.

This has been pointed out to you previously, just like most of the other things you are attempting to re-debate. You go round and round, like the windmills in your mind.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

How about people like you, ENT, who got jailed in this forum last year after you repeatedly insulted my wife ? Eh ? You dirty hypocrite. And that was only ONE of the times you got jailed.
This is the creature you are hitching along with, Dilbert.

Woops, right on cue, just as I predicted in my last post to Gilbert!

Nothing sensible to contribute to the discussion, so out come the insults, left and right!

Really, you are living in fantasy land. I didn't in any way insult your wife whatsoever, not once, ever.

Unless of course you mean by my making you look a fool everytime you came up with some loser idea about anything.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

Can't think outside the square, can't see the bigger picture, pedant?

The best part of you official story addicts is the claim you all make that those planes you imagined were all flyin at around 500mph ASL < 1,000ft without any problem whatsoever!

Nobody has ever stated that that plane did not have problems. Planes cannot SUSTAIN flight at that speed at low levels. But that one was on a one-way mission.

That's right, they can't, so how did this hypothetical plane of yours do it? You all claim that it flew pretty much as I described and sustained (do you know the meaning of the word?) a flight path from around a couple of thousand feet above Washington in a downward spiral, perfectly executed, leveling off at a few hundred feet to maintain a bee line for a few miles until it hit its target with pinpoint accuracy without even knocking over cable spools and a generator in its way.

That was a sustained flight manoeuvre. It was sustained unerringly at low altitude until strike,... so you all maintain.


Now I'll give you the chance to redeem yourself if you can satisfactorily explain what you mean by,

"Nobody has ever stated that that plane did not have problems."

Originally Posted by ENT

When was that Flo? I give references continually in my posts.

I take it then that you can't back up your claims. Thought so.

Absolute nonsense, you post references YOU want to post, not anything relative or credible to the questions posed you..
I have the sources but since you'll just dismiss them anyway there's no point in my wasting my time searching and posting them..

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Giltard, you are going from dumb to dumber.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

tinfoil hat

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

a 3rd grader

Dear me - best I stay out of this section actually. I did not quite know that is was the home of people who only resort to insults and try to invoke slanging matches. Poor show.

Have you just come over from T/V? You seem a little sensitive for the reality of a more open forum..

Originally Posted by ENT

High or low speed, they all disintegrate at the same points, they break apart and don't fold their wings neatly alongside themselves then vaporize, pedant.

Now since you think you're the expert, by what criteria do you think that those pics were of low speed crashes?


And as a matter of comparison, at what speed do you claim an airliner crashed into the Pentagon?

More nonsense...

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I can't believe you spent all that time uploading and posting those plane crash photos on the last page, ENT. They were LOW-SPEED crashes, you dork.
Planes and other objects behave completely differently at high speed.
Even if you say it was not going at 550 mph, it was still accelerated into the building.

500mph? Is that your estimate? That's 804.672 k/h!!! Wow!!!

At sea level?

They can do 500mph at sea level, but don't do it because there are regulations, and landing speeds are much lower. That's 225 m/s, and having watched the 2nd impact many times, that was about the speed the planed zipped with trough the picture. Here is a video with a running clock, and it takes less than 3 seconds from the moment the plane appears at the left until the impact. The space it crosses is apparently larger than the WTC was tall, 417 metres, and it's foreshortened by a slight angle. Please watch it yourself.