Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 126

Thread: Could the fire burn down WTC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    220

    Could the fire burn down WTC?


    picture compare with Madrid fire

  2. #2
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Um... it was proven that the fire and heat did in fact cause the collapse of the building due to the fact that the impact of the aircraft removed the fire retardent insulation that had been sprayed on the support structure. With no insulation, the fire and heat from the burning jet fuel as well as the combustable materials in the structure itself was more then enough to cause further structural degridation which directly led to the collapse.

    Mind you, this is a short explination of what happend but if you would like, I'm sure I can dig up alot more "official" documents reguarding the world trade center disaster.


    Edit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 09-09-2012 at 04:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Could the fire burn down WTC?

    dont forget the shape charges strategically placed to actually bring it down, plus other surrounding buildings not even close to the impact of the wtc collapses being brought down in a controlled manner.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    After Fast & Furious ... I wouldn't put anything past the fed's twisted fascists thoughts

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    Could the fire burn down WTC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Um... it was proven that the fire and heat did in fact cause the collapse of the building due to the fact that the impact of the aircraft removed the fire retardent insulation that had been sprayed on the support structure. With no insulation, the fire and heat from the burning jet fuel as well as the combustable materials in the structure itself was more then enough to cause further structural degridation which directly led to the collapse.

    Mind you, this is a short explination of what happend but if you would like, I'm sure I can dig up alot more "official" documents reguarding the world trade center disaster.


    Edit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
    Uh...proven by who?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  6. #6
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    The only evidence I need to question the government is the lack of evidence regarding the "plane" that "crashed" into the Pentagon. I don't know one way or another what happened at the WTC, but the idea that a large plane can hit the side of the Pentagon and leave no wreckage, but leave the contents of adjoining offices intact is preposterous.

    The best conspiracy theories are the ones put out by the government.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    the impact of the aircraft removed the fire retardent insulation that had been sprayed on the support structure.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    94

    Re: Could the fire burn down WTC?

    Anyone who thinks the government is capable of elaborate conspiracies has not worked long enough the government and alongside clandestine agencies and units. The government and military has problems completing the most simplest of tasks not to mention elaborate conspiracies.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    The M4...serving scum the laws of terminal ballistics at 2,900FPS

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Brimstone Baritone View Post
    The only evidence I need to question the government is the lack of evidence regarding the "plane" that "crashed" into the Pentagon. I don't know one way or another what happened at the WTC, but the idea that a large plane can hit the side of the Pentagon and leave no wreckage, but leave the contents of adjoining offices intact is preposterous.

    The best conspiracy theories are the ones put out by the government.
    Don't forget that field in PA either. There were no bodies, no luggage, no plane parts found anywhere, then there is the matter of the cell phone call...... Wait it's just now possible to do that according to the airline companies. You could not have done it before......

    Besides the best way to have damaged the Pentagon would have been a straight nose dive down into it from the top not from the side.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by 11B2O View Post
    Anyone who thinks the government is capable ----
    Anyone who thinks that "the impact of the aircraft removed the fire retardent insulation that had been sprayed on the support structure and that caused the building to burn down" but the flames didn't destroy the passport of Satam Al Suqami which was discovered in the streets below hasn't been around long enough....period.

    I'm not saying the government did it by the way. They are incredibly unorganized and I too don't believe they are competent enough to pull it off. However, this whole 'passport found' in the street, 'the impact of the aircraft removed the fire retardent insulation that had been sprayed on the support structure,' and absolutely no footage at the pentagon crap is too....is too.....I'm not sure what word to call it- hard to believe.

    Has anyone ever fooled around with a legit flight simulator? It's pretty hard to fly a plane on a real simulator.... just saying....
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by katsung47 View Post

    picture compare with Madrid fire
    The Windsor building also didn't suffer the impact of a jet flying into it at high speeds, if a 767 had blown into the Windsor building it would have collapsed that day. The Windsor building was ravaged by an electrical fire, where as the fires in the WTC were mainly chemical fires fueled by kerosene based jet fuel. the initial impact of the aircraft should have done plenty of damage on it's own. even had the WTC not collapsed it would've had to have been demolitioned.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    11
    As for there being no wreckage to recover in Shanksville, an aircraft constructed of thin aluminum diving into the ground at 600 mph? What would be left? I am a pilot and work around aircraft. You can just about put your finger through the skin of some.

  13. #13
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by GarandGuy55 View Post
    As for there being no wreckage to recover in Shanksville, an aircraft constructed of thin aluminum diving into the ground at 600 mph? What would be left? I am a pilot and work around aircraft. You can just about put your finger through the skin of some.
    so for example a
    325 ton (empty) 747 wouldn leave no trace after an impact into the earth?

    were not talking about laminate skin covered single prop engine planes, we are talking about an aircraft of extreme size. It will leave a trace of what it was!
    Last edited by PFC HALE; 09-10-2012 at 12:18 AM.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    The Windsor building also didn't suffer the impact of a jet flying into it at high speeds, if a 767 had blown into the Windsor building it would have collapsed that day. The Windsor building was ravaged by an electrical fire, where as the fires in the WTC were mainly chemical fires fueled by kerosene based jet fuel. the initial impact of the aircraft should have done plenty of damage on it's own. even had the WTC not collapsed it would've had to have been demolitioned.
    Not according to the non-government expert ... oh, "the records burned" .. isn't that special.

  15. #15
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    so for example a
    325 ton (empty) 747 wouldn leave no trace after an impact into the earth?

    were not talking about laminate skin covered single prop engine planes, we are talking about an aircraft of extreme size. It will leave a trace of what it was!
    Except it was a 757-222 which is maybe a third the size of a 747. with how fragile airplane bodies actually are, I doubt there'd be anything left, except for some aluminum shards and a couple steel widgets and maybe some engine components, there really wouldn't be anything resembling a piece of a plane though.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not according to the non-government expert ... oh, "the records burned" .. isn't that special.
    What the hell are you talking about, if you intend on refuting anything I say it helps to include specific information on what kind of point you're making.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Except it was a 757-222 which is maybe a third the size of a 747. with how fragile airplane bodies actually are, I doubt there'd be anything left, except for some aluminum shards and a couple steel widgets and maybe some engine components, there really wouldn't be anything resembling a piece of a plane though.
    Fortunately, this is debunked by the USAF and FAA's own REMOTE CONTROL plane crashes to evaluate impacts, fire, and what not during a crash. Those tests were conducted with technology back in the doggone 1980's, so one has to believe that technology advancements would make such a remote flight that much easier. After all, we had satellite uplink UAV flight control technology at the time of WTC.

    I'm not saying the government did it. But one has to look at the history of our government, botched missions, successful secrets, and what not. It's entirely plausible that the Feds knew an attack was coming and just let it happen. Roosevelt was accused of just letting the attacks upon Pearl Harbor happen to bring us into WWII. It's also plausible to state that the Feds had a hand in it somehow given the suspicious eyewitness accounts, the mysterious removal of security protocols in certain areas, and the lack of evidence at two specific sites. There was a report in the 1960's that illustrated that the US government would need to / should stage some sort of attack here in the US and blame it on a particular country's populous. So don't think for a nanosecond that our government isn't dumb enough to pull something like WTC, obviously people at the Federal level have been considering things like that for decades.

    For those of you who are pilots, I used to shoot the darn things down for the DOD. There would likely have been a lot more wreckage in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon if it were the planes said to have hit in those locations. When a high explosive shoulder fired missile slams into a high performance fighter jet forcing it to crash and there's till a enough left at the site to determine what the aircraft was then an airliner is going to leave considerably more behind. The lack of engines, engine impact marks on the ground, and engine impact marks on the side of the Pentagon illustrate something was amiss. The government's claim on the Pennsylvania crash is like saying that the impact pulverized the bodies and fuselage into fine dust that flew up into the wind and was carried out over the ocean never to be found. Or that the fire was so hot that it somehow incinerated every body part and bone as well as the fuselage of the aircraft and the liquified aluminum was never found.

    I'll use the example of the DOD claiming that their UAV (carbon fiber) drone crashed in Iran, yet Iran had photos of an in-tact drone. The story rapidly changed to that it had a low altitude crash to it was "landed" to it was intentionally landed to it was taken over (hacked) by Iran and captured. The Feds can't keep their lies straight and they certainly think that the ADA folks and the pilots are dumb enough to think they're telling the truth.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 09-10-2012 at 02:02 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546


    Conspiracy theories are the result of a failure to think. Contrary to conspiracy theorists' claims, they are not evidence of thinking.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    The lack of engines, engine impact marks on the ground, and engine impact marks on the side of the Pentagon illustrate something was amiss. The government's claim on the Pennsylvania crash is like saying that the impact pulverized the bodies and fuselage into fine dust that flew up into the wind and was carried out over the ocean never to be found. Or that the fire was so hot that it somehow incinerated every body part and bone as well as the fuselage of the aircraft and the liquified aluminum was never found.
    Lack of engines at the pentagon?
    Guess none of these pieces exist:
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

    Blech, I thought people had finally gotten over this particular brand of stupidity. Guess I was wrong.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    So when presented with a story from a government that has a long history of misrepresenting the truth for its own ends, you believe that story unquestioningly. Then you have the gall to claim that people who question the story aren't thinking.

    Like I said before, I don't claim to know what happened at the WTC, but I've seen enough pictures from the Pentagon that make me say "Huh." The story surrounding Flight 93 has its own holes. It's not like there have never been plane crashes before, or pictures taken at the crash sites.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  21. #21
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Except it was a 757-222 which is maybe a third the size of a 747. with how fragile airplane bodies actually are, I doubt there'd be anything left, except for some aluminum shards and a couple steel widgets and maybe some engine components, there really wouldn't be anything resembling a piece of a plane though.

    apologies, a 64 ton aircraft would certainly leave enough to resemble an aircraft after a crash. I mean heck the space shuttle blew up over the atlantic and it had enough fuel to obliterate the shuttle and then fall to the bottom of the ocean, they recovered enough to make what appeared to be a shuttle at least that is what it looked to me...

    i refuse to believe that 64 tons of aluminum and steel or something bigger or smaller would just dissapear on impact. there will be plenty of material left to identify what it was.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    apologies, a 64 ton aircraft would certainly leave enough to resemble an aircraft after a crash. I mean heck the space shuttle blew up over the atlantic and it had enough fuel to obliterate the shuttle and then fall to the bottom of the ocean, they recovered enough to make what appeared to be a shuttle at least that is what it looked to me...

    i refuse to believe that 64 tons of aluminum and steel or something bigger or smaller would just dissapear on impact. there will be plenty of material left to identify what it was.
    I would have to agree with you.

    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    This thread... it's full of derp!

    What makes any of you think that there's any reason this is a conspiracy orchestrated by the government? And to what end? I mean, if the government could orchestrate a conspiracy at the massive level you're positing (despite the heaps of evidence showing that the conspiracy theorists are flat out wrong), what was the end goal? I've heard Iraq, yet we couldn't even find WMDs nor plant them to make it look like we did... that seems a lot easier than a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people.

    And what do you tell the families of everyone who lost family members on those flights, including the one in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania? "Sorry, your family member never existed."

    Seriously, is there one scrap or iota of evidence that your conspiracy idiocy is even remotely plausible? But you think I'm the idiot for believing the "official" story... You know, the explanation the vast majority of people recognize as "what happened"?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    apologies, a 64 ton aircraft would certainly leave enough to resemble an aircraft after a crash. I mean heck the space shuttle blew up over the atlantic and it had enough fuel to obliterate the shuttle and then fall to the bottom of the ocean, they recovered enough to make what appeared to be a shuttle at least that is what it looked to me...

    i refuse to believe that 64 tons of aluminum and steel or something bigger or smaller would just dissapear on impact. there will be plenty of material left to identify what it was.
    You're absolutely right, there would be lots of bits and pieces. And we have pictures of those, such as http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml]this link I posted earlier[/url]
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    This thread... it's full of derp!

    What makes any of you think that there's any reason this is a conspiracy orchestrated by the government? And to what end? I mean, if the government could orchestrate a conspiracy at the massive level you're positing (despite the heaps of evidence showing that the conspiracy theorists are flat out wrong), what was the end goal? I've heard Iraq, yet we couldn't even find WMDs nor plant them to make it look like we did... that seems a lot easier than a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people.

    And what do you tell the families of everyone who lost family members on those flights, including the one in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania? "Sorry, your family member never existed."

    Seriously, is there one scrap or iota of evidence that your conspiracy idiocy is even remotely plausible? But you think I'm the idiot for believing the "official" story... You know, the explanation the vast majority of people recognize as "what happened"?

    The only people that we know died for sure were those who were in the Towers.
    I don't know anyone who died the alleged plane crashes.
    Another question comes up, why were the Israelies who where known to be involved released and their involvement covered up? (If you don't think this happens look at the USS Liberty event.)

    Why was building 7 'pulled' (that means it was rigged with explosives and "blown up")? That takes days/weeks to get explosives rigged to bring down a building like that.

    Why was congress on record saying "Those responsible want to take away your rights."? Then they pushed the "patriot act" right through the system and got it passed. What did that do? It took away our rights. Geez and people wonder why we don't trust the government.

    What was the Bin Laden family doing at the time of the 'attacks' ? They were chilling out on the Bush ranch.
    Where did Bin Laden get U.S. weapons? We gave them to him when we helped him build up his organization.

    So even if it was not the government as a whole who was behind those 'attacks' there were at least members of it behind it either letting it happen or making it happen.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •