If it was obviously the jet fuel that made towers collapse why were firefighters going in?

well, seems that many CIA-friendly posters are here at the moment ..


it was their duty to go into the towers.

No-one expected the towers to collapse. thats clear.

they had defective emergenca signal in their walkie talkies , so 300 died.

thanks Guiliani .

[edit on 29-8-2007 by anti72]

Originally posted by anti72
they had defective emergenca signal in their walkie talkies , so 300 died.

thanks Guiliani .

Exactly. The same faulty equipment they had been complaining to Guiliani for years I've heard. But, Guiliani's our poster boy for 9/11. Yeah right.

Thats cold- say that to their families then.


Their job? tsk tsk You should come up with a better answer then that. You think their expendable? The NYFD lost over 300+ firefighters that day. Do you think they would have risked the lives of over 300+ firefighters if they knew the towers were going to collapse?

What is this if? it was their job and their families knew it. They knew it. they did it with valor and honor. they accepted it beforehand.

What if YOU were one of the people trapped inside? would you want the firefighters to give up then?

You might think its cold, but it was their job to save as much life and property as they could. My heart goes out to all of them. They took a job most wouldn't dare. That makes them heros 911 or not.

But I dont see the firemen dead to people they saved coming out to even. I think they went in there to put the fires out, how could they of saved people when everyone was just rushing down the stairs, other than a few from impact zone that were injured that were maybe carried down. They were there to put the fires out and help the few that were injured which wasnt many. So I see things as a +400 in the death toll that didnt need to happen, unless someone can explain to me how they saved more lives.

Originally posted by admriker444

A lot of folks have this misconception which is why many dont question how those buildings could fall.

Airplanes are made of lightweight composite materials. The only part of a plane that usually survives a crash are the engines (theyre made of titanium).

A plane hitting those towers would be like an egg hitting a brick wall. Yes the plane penetrates inside the structure because of the glass but once inside it crumples into nothing.

The jet fuel would burn hot but no more than 5-10 minutes before the fire would cool down to a standard paper/wood fire. And of course jet fuel burns about 800' lower than needed to weaken steel and 1,000' before it starts to melt.

The stories we are told was the fire weakened the steel. Physics says thats impossible.

Then they say well maybe the plane hurt the structure of the building...impossible. Heck, the designers of the building even admit the World Trade towers were built to withstand a plane strike. Lightweight composite metal is never going to severely damage hardened structural steel.

I think these folks are decent people who are looking for any possible reason to avoid the possiblity that something other than a plane brought those towers down. Its too difficult to face.

Those firefighters had every reason to think the buildings would stand. History proves this. The explosions they heard AFTER the plane had long struck the buildings say something else happened

While you mention the weight of the plane, you forget about the speed of the plane. Velocity is a direct factor in the damage an object does no matter how light the object is. A poker card in a tornado can slice wood. It's much lighter than an airplane.

The fire would not cool, that simply isn't how it works. And you are also wrong about the temperature needed to weaken steel. You are thinking of the temperature at which most steel melts. But there is no sudden point of weakening, and it is a linear scale. About 100 degrees will cause steel to lose half it's strength. Losing half its strength is enough to cause a collapse alone.

Not only does physics say it is possible, but the engineers have proven it so and provided all the calculations to show that it is possible. If you find some fault in the calculations, perhaps you can point them out to us.

Impossible for a plain to damage a structure at that speed? Not only possible, but it's the only possible result. And there was no maybe about it. No the designers of the WTC most certainly did NOT say it's impossible. That's being dishonest about their testing, which nowhere near accounted for the events that happened on 9/11. And in fact the events of that day exploited a weakness overlooked by the designers and pointed out the many things they hadn't accounted for in their testing (which was simply doing some calculations after the building was finished and guessing what it could handle).

The explosions hear after the planes hit are something inevitable in a building that is burning and collapsing. Even the people jumping and falling to their deaths caused explosion sounds as they hit the pavement and the overhangs. Steel buckling, transformers blowing. 100s of things that all cause explosions sounds in such events. Yet not a shred o physical evidence to support anything else.

Why is it that whenever someone claims something is against the laws of physics, it's usually by someone with no background in physics? And they always seem to think that these people who do this for a living and are professionals in engineering don't know what they are talking about. I never understood that.

Originally posted by snoopy
While you mention the weight of the plane, you forget about the speed of the plane.

The buildings hit the planes with the same speed that the planes hit the buildings. The materials are most important.

But there is no sudden point of weakening, and it is a linear scale. About 100 degrees will cause steel to lose half it's strength.

It's not linear, and steel won't lose any of its strength at 100 C, let alone 100 F (which ever you were talking about).

Not only does physics say it is possible, but the engineers have proven it so and provided all the calculations to show that it is possible.

No, they haven't. A simple rebuttal would be to link me to the calculations, but you probably wouldn't get them if you found some, so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between good calcs and bad ones in the first place.

If you find some fault in the calculations, perhaps you can point them out to us.

Well damn, post us some calculations in the first place.

Impossible for a plain to damage a structure at that speed?

What about not putting words in others' mouths?

Why is it that whenever someone claims something is against the laws of physics, it's usually by someone with no background in physics?

What's yours? And when exactly did you learn that steel loses half its strength at 100 degrees?

And they always seem to think that these people who do this for a living and are professionals in engineering don't know what they are talking about. I never understood that.

I'm an engineering student. Electronics engineering, and I've had the physics and understand statics (not that statics have much of ANYTHING to do with the collapses, same with most all of civil/structural engineering topics -- the idea that CEs or SEs are the relevant experts is flawed). The member Griff here is also a civil engineer and would probably tell you most of everything I've just said in different words. There are others here that post more sporadically (or maybe I just come across them less often) that also have backgrounds in physics/chemistry/mechanical engineering. Valhall is another engineer. Talk to these people.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Dear racerzeke:

You’ve brought up an excellent point. A monumental one actually. Probably without noticing that you did.

The firefighters went into the buildings precisely because they knew there was no danger. As seasoned professionals they knew full and well there were no blazing fires. They have eyes and know what to look for. Like all of us, they saw the smoke and wanted to rescue people from suffocation. They would have taken the elevators — yes firefighters do that, only civilians are supposed to use the stairs — but, surprise, surprise, they weren’t working. 9-11 planners did everything they could to prevent anyone from discovering the source of the soot clouds. Which I suggest were commercial smoke generating machines as routinely used in military and firefighting training exercises.

Naturally, not being a member of the 9-11 cabal, I have no sources for these thoughts other than flow-chart logical reasoning.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by bsbray11
(not that statics have much of ANYTHING to do with the collapses, same with most all of civil/structural engineering topics -- the idea that CEs or SEs are the relevant experts is flawed). The member Griff here is also a civil engineer and would probably tell you most of everything I've just said in different words.

BsBray is right. Once things were in motion (dynamics), statics is out the window (no pun intended). Plus, I'll vouch that everything BsBray said is correct.

reply to post by jprophet420


The FDNY also set up a command center in the lobby because they were certain the towers would not collapse. Do some research before declaring "case closed."

The reason they went in was because it was their job.
Firefighters risk their lives every time they enter a burning building.
Any burning building may collapse yet they go in anyway.

Firefighters risk their lives for people and property. It's a tough job but thats what makes them hero's of the highest caliber.

Nascar drivers risk their lives when they drive, construction workers, window cleaners, police officers, and all other jobs "risk their lives" and i agree these men were brave for going into the building but the "its their job wrap" just doesnt fit for me because yes the first firemen there of course were going to go into the building, but I mean there was like 1 hour from impact to collapse and they were still being aloud in there, not just joe fireman but higher ups were in the lobbies and organizing a rescue, and for them to allow 300 (+200 police) die for pretty much nothing is absurd to me.

The firefighters went into the buildings precisely because they knew there was no danger. As seasoned professionals they knew full and well there were no blazing fires. They have eyes and know what to look for.

What about all the people who suffered serious or fatal burns as jet
fuel blew down the elevator shafts and stairs. Also the artifical smoke
used in training has a distinctive smell (been in enough simulations
to know). Any firefighter would have recognized it.

Say you are using logical flows to discover truth? More likely picking
only what fits your paranoid fantasies.....

Dear “d” man:

Sure the artificial smoke has a distinct smell, it smells like kerosene if it’s petroleum based oil fog. And the “jet fuel explosions”, if real, could have been caused by naphthalene IED simulators — also mass produced and off the shelf available for military training exercises. Yeah, and those elevator shaft blasts. They did all sorts of odd things. Like conveniently/selectively blow up the WTC security center on one of the lower floors.

Maybe I AM paranoid. Because I’m looking for theories which add up. Ones you can’t punch holes in. I want answers. Have wanted them for the past six years. And the only way to find them is through deductive reasoning.

Steadfastly refusing to drink the Kool-Aid,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 8/31/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

According to the Firechiefs that were there, not one believed the towers would collapse. The only concern was for the upper floors above the fires might collapse if the fires would have burned for several more hours (which they didn't)

Quote from the 9/11 commission report:

Staff Statement #13, page 20

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Sure the artificial smoke has a distinct smell, it smells like kerosene if it’s petroleum based oil fog.

There are two basic type of smoke machines - water based using
glycerin or glycol based smoke fluid, Oil based use a mineral oil aka
"baby" oil. Military smoke generators use heavy fuel oil called fog oil
Each floor at WTC was an acre in size - using regular theatre or fire
simulaters would be too small and a military type fog generator would be
too big to move and conceal. Also FF know what a fire smells like and
can identify what is burning just from the smell alone. You are totally illogical.

Firefighters risk their lives doing their jobs, yes, but they do NOT go into a situation they consider to be LIFE THREATENING.

I think fearing a building collapse would count as a LIFE THREATENING situation, therefore they would NOT go into the building for anything other than to get people OUT as fast as possible.

From what I heard, they were running water lines up to the fires, and were nearly ready to start putting them out when the buildings fell.

Another thing to note. WTC2 was hit SECOND, and fell FIRST. In addition, WTC2, being built after WTC1, was built STRONGER than WTC1, based on the lessons learned during the construction of WTC1. WTC2 was a better WTC1, so why did it fall first, having been hit second????

originally posted by admriker444
Speed has nothing really to do with whatever brought down the buildings.
You can toss an egg at 600 mph at a brick wall but it will still go splat.

Google Video Link

this video is of secondamendementgun firing pumpkins at a contest.
This photo shows the damage that a pumpkin can do to a cargo van at 150 yards after being fired from a cannon with a 600 mph muzzle velocity. Maybe speed did have a factor in the 767 penetrating the tower.

reply to post by thedman


It’s more like there are ‘two hundred’ possible substances from which smoke can be generated. And whatever was used at the WTC’s was selected for maximum screening properties, not for OSHA compatibility or consumer friendliness. I.e. the ‘nasty stuff’ was used. Why exactly would the large military grade fog generators have been to large to move or conceal? There were plenty of equipment rooms or empty offices, weren’t there? And really there was no need to hide any of this. They would have appeared as harmless machinery to anyone except the 9-11 planners.

Yes, firefighters KNOW what real fires smell and look like. But not from a thousand feet beneath the source. Which is why logic dictates that the WTC-2 south tower was ‘pulled’ because NYFD personnel — reaching the upper floors and approaching the scene of “plane impact” — were about to identify what specifically was ‘burning’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Anyone see the "inside 9/11" show on history channel, I'm sure you guys have because they show it atleast once a day (kinda odd to me) but this guy I believe his name was weslie wong, fbi or ex-fbi was there in the lobby and he says there was absolutely no talk of the buildings going down, that seems sad to me. These men didnt know the extreme danger they were in and it makes me sad that they were aloud to climb up to the 70-80 floors with no chance of survival after that because they were trying to put the fires out.



And that fan is tin foil compared to what a building is made of

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear racerzeke:

You’ve brought up an excellent point. A monumental one actually. Probably without noticing that you did.

The firefighters went into the buildings precisely because they knew there was no danger. As seasoned professionals they knew full and well there were no blazing fires. They have eyes and know what to look for. Like all of us, they saw the smoke and wanted to rescue people from suffocation. They would have taken the elevators — yes firefighters do that, only civilians are supposed to use the stairs — but, surprise, surprise, they weren’t working. 9-11 planners did everything they could to prevent anyone from discovering the source of the soot clouds. Which I suggest were commercial smoke generating machines as routinely used in military and firefighting training exercises.

Naturally, not being a member of the 9-11 cabal, I have no sources for these thoughts other than flow-chart logical reasoning.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

WTF???? You obviously have had NO fire fighting experience whatsoever. Where there is smoke there is fire. There is not a commercial smoke generating machine that can produce that type of smoke much less the amount that was seen coming from the building. Besides the smoke produced from these machines is generally WHITE and non toxic, so no one would have suffocated. Having fought numerous structure fires and having been involved in training for 15 years I can speak from experience. As for no danger?????? What ever...Man ANYTIME you go into a burning structure there is danger..ANYTIME....There was black smoke coming from that building. Black smoke = FIRE. As for elevators..they are used on a VERY limited basis. That is why most of the firefighters were in the stair wells. Ever thought that when the fire alarms were tripped that the elevators went into fire mode, went to their respective "ground" floors and shut down? Thats what they are supposed to do. They can only be used when a key is used to put then in override.