• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

katsung47

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
220
Location
San Jose, California
319876_456012447760844_161109786_n.jpg

picture compare with Madrid fire
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
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/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
 
Last edited:

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
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.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
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/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Uh...proven by who?
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 

11B2O

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
94
Location
High Point, NC
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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......:shocker:

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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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....
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
319876_456012447760844_161109786_n.jpg

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.
 

GarandGuy55

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
11
Location
West Virginia
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.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
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:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
3qXX8.jpg


Conspiracy theories are the result of a failure to think. Contrary to conspiracy theorists' claims, they are not evidence of thinking.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Blech, I thought people had finally gotten over this particular brand of stupidity. Guess I was wrong.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top