9/11- Something just occurred to me...

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

You're kind of pushing an argument that's not there...

-most- people, including experts, understand that the jetfuel present in the impact was almost completely burned up instantly in the GIANT fireball that was seen. Throughout the hour or two of burning the buildings presented a thick, black smoke, evidence of a cooler fire, that was suffocated.

This is jet fuel, not gasoline.

Citation from a credible source that the jet fuel burned up instantly.

*almost completely burned up instantly in the fireball. The rest of the fuel was burned up completely within a few minutes at most


NIST says:
"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."
(p. 183/p. 233 of the .pdf)

and

"Jet fuel sprayed onto the surfaces of typical office workstations burned away within a few minutes."
(p. 184)

Link to NIST's main report:
wtc.nist.gov...

a reply to: Iconic

NIST says:
"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."
(p. 183/p. 233 of the .pdf)

He knows that, he is playing stupid. Wants to keep us busy proven old facts, as if it something new.

I was accused of doing the same thing, interesting how the door swing both ways.

a reply to: Iconic

RIght.

Not instantly burned in the fireball, as per your initial claim:

-most- people, including experts, understand that the jetfuel present in the impact was almost completely burned up instantly in the GIANT fireball that was seen.

From your source:

WTC 1


WTC2

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

NIST says:
"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."
(p. 183/p. 233 of the .pdf)

He knows that, he is playing stupid. Wants to keep us busy proven old facts, as if it something new.

I was accused of doing the same thing, interesting how the door swing both ways.

Informer guy, I was directing those questions to Iconic who was under the impression the jet fuel all burned up in the intial fireball, quit trying to control the narrative here and maybe we will get somewhere closer to the truth of what happened and not be stuck on speaking to melted engine blocks and pyroclastic flows.

Instead of making posts like that, why don't you put on your critical thinking cap and perhaps you can learn something?
You also have a lot of knowledge on the event, if you don't go down every rabbit hole and chase things like melted engine blocks and pyroclatic flows, perhaps others could learn from you?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

but...the debris was falling faster...

Correct.

A&E forced NIST to change their outcome in the WTC 7 report, that the building fell faster than freefall for 2 seconds and the only scientific explanation that can explain that is demolition, nothing else scientifically has been proven.

Can I have a citation for this please, and no, I was not aware that WTC 7 was shown to fall faster than freefall, you will have to provide proof for me in order for me to believe that.

If you cannot provide a citation then I have no choice but to disgard this information as not credible as I can't find evidence online that it is the case.

a reply to: D8Tee

Since you're one of the last OSers out there, how do you cope with the existence of WT7? How does that collapse make any sense to you?

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

Since you're one of the last OSers out there, how do you cope with the existence of WT7? How does that collapse make any sense to you?

A working knowledge of physics helps.

Are you even aware WTC7 incurred damage?

Not sure how far along the learning curve you are.

Do you still believe all the jet fuel burned up instantly upon impact?

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

Since you're one of the last OSers out there, how do you cope with the existence of WT7? How does that collapse make any sense to you?

A working knowledge of physics helps.

Do you still believe all the jet fuel burned up instantly upon impact?

I clarified, that I said that I had thought *most* of it had burned up in the initial fireball.

But seeing in the NIST report that it was 45%, then I'll believe that number, against my better judgement (Resting on NIST's credibility, which is shaky at best with me)


But it was all burned up within a few minutes at most.


ETA: wtc7 "sustained damage" does not at ALL give it the needed damage to collapse the way it did. Look at the damage taken by ANY OTHER building in the area. WT5 was almost completely destroyed by falling debris, but did not collapse into it's own footprint. It did not collapse at all, actually. You can see footage of WTC7 post collapse of the towers, and the damage is MINIMAL.

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

Since you're one of the last OSers out there, how do you cope with the existence of WT7? How does that collapse make any sense to you?

A working knowledge of physics helps.

Do you still believe all the jet fuel burned up instantly upon impact?

I clarified, that I said that I had thought *most* of it had burned up in the initial fireball.

But seeing in the NIST report that it was 45%, then I'll believe that number, against my better judgement (Resting on NIST's credibility, which is shaky at best with me)

But it was all burned up within a few minutes at most.

Are you aware that WTC7 incurred some damage from the falling tower that day?

a reply to: Iconic

What I find amusing is that when the planes slamed into the two WTC they fell down within one hour.
However WTC 7 did not suffer the kind of damage as WTC 1 & 2 yet, it fell faster than a natural free fall, 2 seconds faster.

Now I am told that I am trying to control the narratives, I find this very amusing. LOL

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

but...the debris was falling faster...

Correct.

A&E forced NIST to change their outcome in the WTC 7 report, that the building fell faster than freefall for 2 seconds and the only scientific explanation that can explain that is demolition, nothing else scientifically has been proven.

Informer dude, back up your claims or quit spouting nonsense.

This isn't a site where you just come and make unsubstantiated claims and expect to get away with it.

This is the THIRD time I've asked for a citation for this nonsense.

Now show the proof or go away.

However WTC 7 did not suffer the kind of damage as WTC 1 & 2 yet it fell faster than a natural free fall, 2 seconds faster.

Nonsense, lets see your proof buddy.

Citation please.

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

Since you're one of the last OSers out there, how do you cope with the existence of WT7? How does that collapse make any sense to you?

Yes, more people want the truth over 9/11. But the percentage of people that believe the government was behind 9/11 is not a majority.

www.npr.org...

So 19 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks for using senseless logic and generalizing that has no proof. The hallmark of conspiracies!


So, please state what brought down WTC 7!

Did you know there was a lawsuit over WTC 7
Aegis Insurance V. 7 WTC expert reports
www.metabunk.org...

If the owner was guilty of CD, don't you think Aegis would have based their case on CD?

Get to discrediting those technical documents!

a reply to: D8Tee

Inform will not cite a source?

I remember many an argument with Inform where Inform would state, "That is your opinion, cite a source."

Or Inform's latest mantra over eyewitness's accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon? That is hearsay!

But what are Inform's arguments based on.....

Differently not on any legal battle by conspiracists / the truth movement taking the government to court. You would think those "white washed" NIST reports would be an easy target in a lawsuit?


So what is the argument? Thermite, self destructing buildings, nukes, missiles and holograms, lasers and holograms, Dustification, thermite paint, thermite ceiling tiles, fire extinguishers filled with bombs, or fizzle no flash demolitions?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

What I find amusing is that when the planes slamed into the two WTC they fell down within one hour.
However WTC 7 did not suffer the kind of damage as WTC 1 & 2 yet, it fell faster than a natural free fall, 2 seconds faster.

Now I am told that I am trying to control the narratives, I find this very amusing. LOL

Do you understand the concept of honesty debate? Can you honestly state the damage to WTC 7 has never been argued in a thread you were part of? WTC 7 was hit by falling debris, caught on fire, and the WTC 7 sprinkler system was inoperable. The fires in WTC 7 were spread and broke out faster than anything planned in the building design.

Many similarities to WTC 1 and 2. So you are saying WTC 1 and 2 would not have survived if there was no fire?

From: www.911myths.com...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
www.firehouse.com...

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: Informer1958


What would burn cars, but not paper, flags, or some of the cars' upholstery?

Seems magnetic to me... Especially with the evident, quick rusting of the vehicles effected.

Magnetic burning, though?

What is one of the same between an apparent magnetic burning, and the collapsing of the towers, or the attacks in general?

Extreme energy displacement. Energy displacement can also cause rusting.

Hmm.

What is extreme energy displacement?

Is that something you just made up?

You do know that cars that been thru a fire rust very fast if they are in a humid environment, which New York would be right?

a reply to: ClovenSky

It is also amazing how fast they got the wreckage out of New York. They had to contract a lot of trucks and then ships to remove all of the evidence ... errr...debris. Didn't they ship it all to China? Why the rush?

Why the rush...?

Well you got 16 acres of smoldering debris full of human remains. You just going to let it sit there?

One you need to put out the fire(s), recover the human remains, both for moral purposes and avoid disease

Also need to remove debris to prep sites for rebuilding

As far as shipping debris to China ... It was sent to Fresh Kills, a landfill site in Staten Island , where it was searched
and sifted by police detectives for human remains and evidence

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: Informer1958

So true . I wonder where they are. The kings of thread derailing can't be too far behind here.

Why don't you name names instead of resorting to innuendo?

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the thread, or is that all you got?

a reply to: Iconic

What would burn cars, but not paper, flags, or some of the cars' upholstery?

No burning paper...?

1:00 into video - burning piles of paper

www.youtube.com...

What do think set the vehicles on fire ....? Notice how close the vehicles are parked to each other ...?

In this situation is easy for fire to spread from one vehicle to another, all it takes is one vehicle

Seen it enough times in parking lots, one vehicles catches fire and sets several others on fire

Notice broken out windows in vehicles, gives access to interior for any sparks or burning debris to enter and start fires

Once one vehicle on that street (Barclay St) caught fire was chain reaction as other vehicles adjacent to it caught

This picture taken 6 months before the 9/11 attack gives a good perspective on the location of WTC7 in relation to the main towers.



Does anyone seriously doubt that it would suffer severe collateral damage in the collapse of the north tower? The amazing thing is it wasn't flattened when that happened.

a reply to: Informer1958

Then there is the photos of some vehicles with engine blocks melted, yet I now agree with a recent comment from a poster the flow wasn't hot enough to melt metal. However, the door handles where completely gone on hundreds of cars, perhaps there might have been some type of corrosives in the flow?

Missing door handles....??

You are aware that most handles are made of PLASTIC . Plastic burns. Which us what you expect in vehicles that
was on fire

Also is not engine block, but radiators, Radiators made of small vanes of aluminum, Aluminum melts at low temperature

Seen it many times at vehicle fires..........