Proof we are all lying to ourselves

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why did you feel you had to lie about that statement?

I did not lie. I may have used the wrong wording, but most of the reports including the FEMA report state that a large amount of the fuel burned off OUTSIDE the building.

Also the firemen on the scene did not report any jet fuel fires.

The 9/11 commission report stated there was only isolated fires 10 minutes after the impact.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why did you feel you had to lie about that statement?

I did not lie. I may have used the wrong wording, but most of the reports including the FEMA report state that a large amount of the fuel burned off OUTSIDE the building.

Also the firemen on the scene did not report any jet fuel fires.

The 9/11 commission report stated there was only isolated fires 10 minutes after the impact.

And you keep reading the report, where one of the fire chiefs explains:


www.fas.org...

page 309

"We had a large volume of fire on the upper floors. Each floor was approximately an acre in size. Several floors of fire would have been beyond the fire-extinguishing capability of the forces we had on hand. So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be stricktly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out."

Yeah.....fire so small they were getting out, after rescuing who they could. Rather than fight these small fires.

Hmmmm.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Yeah.....fire so small they were getting out, after rescuing who they could. Rather than fight these small fires.

Where was the chief? Was he in the building with the firemen ?

Do you have any reports from the firemen that were on the floors ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Yeah.....fire so small they were getting out, after rescuing who they could. Rather than fight these small fires.

Where was the chief? Was he in the building with the firemen ?

Do you have any reports from the firemen that were on the floors ?

Why not read the 911 commission report and find out? Do I have to do all of your research?


edit: Since I know you wont, the information was from Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. His videotaped testimony on May 18, 2004.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed Why not read the 911 commission report and find out? Do I have to do all of your research?

Why wont you answer the question.

Do you have any reports from the firemen who were on the scene ?



[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Why wont you do any research? If you did, you might find that Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was on the scene.

How can you say you have done ANY research if you dont even know where Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was during 9/11?!?

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Disclosed]

reply to post by Griff


The point of that is the fact that the fuel load for that floor was far, far below what was present on the floors above. Of course fuel, hydraulic fliud, lines etc will burn...but that pales incomparison to the carpet, plastics, wood, paper and other fuels that were present on the floors above.

reply to post by Griff


Yes the fire would run out of combustibles eventually, but not in the short amount of time from the time of impact to the time of collapse. There were ALOT of things to burn on those floors. Fire will move up, following the heat seaking more fuel. I have seen fire travel from one floor to another just through windows

reply to post by Disclosed


From experience let me tell you you are going to get no where. You will get nothing but circular arguments from Ultima. I have tried to explain fire behavior to him..but he wont listen. Even reading the smoke you can tell that they were not "smoldering" fires. "Smoldering" fires do not generate that type of smoke under that kind of pressure. But what do I know? Just some dumb firefighter.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


What are the floor sqaure footages of those buildings as compared to WTC?

BTW..Please dont tell me to look it up. They are your photos you know.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by six]

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H


A lot of people are doing something about it - many are getting informed and spreading the word arond, many are reading and understanding the constitution for the first time ever, some are involved in civil rights reforms... there are many movements to oust those abominations elected into office, there are ongoing serious investigations into 911 (by the people at least) ...some are trying to change the political system and restore the constitution and civil liberties that are almost non-existent, some are writing books and hosting websites to inform peple, some are supporting Ron Paul (the only man who wants to stop the war and policing the world, who wants to abolish the illegal Federal Reserve System and illegal income taxation, who wants to restore the government to We The People, etc) ... and many are seriously asking themselves the right question: why did WE THE PEOPLE allow this to happen, to stop playing the victim and take responsibility for wrongful decisions or lack of action that has lead to a corrupt political system.

people have become lazy and undisciplined and the news is all spoon fed to the majority, YET despite that, many are waking up and taking a stand. my mother, a die-hard republican for 48 years and who used to adore "W" has seen the light (no small doing). it isn't too late to stand up and make a difference.

reply to post by monoclear


it's like anything in life: you have to pick the wheat from the chaffe.

Originally posted by six
"Smoldering" fires do not generate that type of smoke under that kind of pressure.

This got me thinking about oxygen at these heights. Would there be a difference in oxygen levels at this height? I'll start looking into it.

reply to post by Griff


I asked and looked in some of my reference books but could not find much. My guess is that at 500' to 750' the O2 content would still be about 21%

reply to post by six


The 80th floor would be about 1,000 ft. But, I expect not much change. I can't find anything on what height the oxygen level starts depleting.

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H



Do you have a link to the video where george bush says they planted explosives?

Thanks

Originally posted by Disclosed
How can you say you have done ANY research if you dont even know where Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was during 9/11?!?

I know where Chief Hayden was and what he did , i have the timeline from www.firehouse.com.... Maybe you should look at it sometime.

Again there are no reports of major infernos or jet fuel fires in the South tower from the radio calls received by the firemen.

If you would do any real research you would also see that at 9:00 AM. the Port Authority evacuated the North tower NOT BECUASE OF FIRE , BUT DUE TO POSSIBLE DANGER OF JET FUEL.

www.9-11commission.gov...

At 9:00 a.m., the Port Authority Police commanding officer ordered an evacuation of civilians in the World Trade Center complex because of the danger posed by highly flammable jet fuel from Flight 11. The order was issued, however, over a radio channel which could be heard only by officers on the Port Authority-Trade Center command channel. There is no evidence that this order was communicated to officers in other Port Authority Police commands or to members of other responding agencies.

Originally posted by six
I have tried to explain fire behavior to him..but he wont listen. Even reading the smoke you can tell that they were not "smoldering" fires. "Smoldering" fires do not generate that type of smoke under that kind of pressure. But what do I know? Just some dumb firefighter.

But where was the big infernos and big jet fuel fires that the official story keeps talking about ? I see no large, long lasting flames comming out of the windows that you would have in a big inferno that the official story claims.

Can you show me videos of a large inferno lasting untill the buldings collapsed ?

If you know so much about what hpapened that day you should have no problem posting lots of good, hard physical evidnece and official reports.




[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Here... you did the work for me. I will use your images. If you look at the smoke you will notice how black it is and how it is still coming out of the build under pressure. Smoldering fires DO NOT produce smoke of that nature. Just because you dont see fire in the picture does not mean it isnt there. The smoke tells the tale. each floor was 43000 square feet. Almost a acre. The plane bulldozed the combutibles toward the center of the building. I would not expect to see fire. The smoke would tell me just what I am getting into. Also these pictures were taken from the ground level. 1000+ feet below the fire floors. I would expect to see much.

Originally posted by six
I would not expect to see fire. The smoke would tell me just what I am getting into. Also these pictures were taken from the ground level. 1000+ feet below the fire floors. I would expect to see much.

But here is what firefighter site states about steel building fires.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

So i guess you are the only one right and these firemen are wrong?


[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Apples to oranges. No other building has had a Boeing 757 flown into it, had a very large fire, and globally collapsed. Need to pick another example.

Edit to add: Those fires broke windows to vent themselves. The fires at WTC were ALREADY vented. But seeing as how your a expert, you already knew that.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by six]