The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.

reply to post by ImAPepper

Originally posted by ImAPepper

That's a picture of the building while it's falling, which is why you can see deformations. I bet there is still a pocket of people out there who can read through this thread and still believe that it was box-cutter armed terrorises, but that pocket is getting even smaller. [/snip]



[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]



Fixed quote and removed personal attack

[edit on 15/3/10 by masqua]
Note

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]

The fact remains that the raging fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and ABOVE. None of the firefighters got beyond the 79th floor. It's in the transcripts and you can look at the videos and see it.

This has been known since the transcripts and recordings were released - that the firefighters did NOT reach the floors where the actual fires were raging before WTC 2 collapsed.

Architects and Engineers know this as well and have been asked nicely to remove their video. The issue is quite clearly that A&E misrepresented the events, knowing full well, as we all do, that the "inferno" was limited to several floors ABOVE where the fireman had ultimately reached.

Does this serve the Truth Movement and A&E any purpose other than to discredit themselves? If so, enlighten us real skeptics - and the families of the firemen who lost their lives knowing what the REAL deal was before dying in the collapse.


[edit on 15-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
The fact remains that the raging fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and ABOVE. None of the firefighters got beyond the 79th floor. It's in the transcripts and you can look at the videos and see it.

Before this can even remotely be considered anything whatsoever, you need to define "raging" in quantifiable scientific terms.

Originally posted by jthomas
The fact remains that the raging fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and ABOVE. None of the firefighters got beyond the 79th floor. It's in the transcripts and you can look at the videos and see it.

But you keep forgetting or ignoring the jet fuel fires on the lower floors as told by the official story.

The ones that were NOT in the firefighters transcripts that made it to the 78th floor.

reply to post by REMISNE


Those were separate fires which included the elevator shafts which made waterfalls of exploding jet fuel. I would, and correct me if wrong, think this would be more of a flash fire and if it is in a metal corridor such as a vertical elevator shaft there is no much to catch on fire apart from people in or near the elevators and doors on the floors down from the point of impact.

If you look at all the parts and not single out the instances of fire you see that it was uncontrollable. This picture gives us a good look at the destruction of the south tower and the 'red floors' of the north tower. Uncontrolled fires were on the upper floors. If you have ever worked in an office you would know that it is the LAST place you would want to be in a fire. It is all tinder...

How many times does the 9/11 scientific truth movement have to debunk the same old al-Qaeda conspiracy theories?

Assuming for the moment that the majority of the jet fuel wasn't consumed in the massive fireball everyone has seen over and over again... the towers were built like three separate buildings stacked on top of each other. If jet fuel had shot down the elevator shafts it would have come out at the sky lobby directly below. Firefighters had already passed both sky lobbies at the time of collapse and noted no significant fire. Second, no matter how much "tinder" was available above, office fires have never before or since caused a steel-frame building to collapse, because they don't burn hot enough to weaken steel. And thirdly, regardless of all of the above, steel is significantly stronger and heavier than a watermelon at a Gallagher show, it doesn't get mangled and flung hundreds of feet horizontally without a lot of energetic assistance.






I know it's hard to believe the government's terrorist conspiracy theories are well-crafted lies designed to make people paranoid and eager to give up their freedoms to feel secure, but that's the truth of the matter.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
The fact remains that the raging fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and ABOVE. None of the firefighters got beyond the 79th floor. It's in the transcripts and you can look at the videos and see it.

But you keep forgetting or ignoring the jet fuel fires on the lower floors as told by the official story.

The ones that were NOT in the firefighters transcripts that made it to the 78th floor.

You can see in the pictures and videos that the major fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and above and no fireman had yet reached them.

Remember, ae911truth states quite clearly in the video:

”Either there were emergency teams operating in the building, or there was a tremendous inferno of sustained temperatures as required to obliterate steel.

“The two possibilities are mutually exclusive.”

We all know that this statement is false since all photos, videos, and firemen accounts quite clearly demonstrate that fires were only burning heavily on floors 80 and above.

This is also a fallacy of false alternatives. There are not just two mutually exclusive alternatives. The third alternative, which is the one that is actually true, is that the firemen were operating in the building where there was no major fires burning.

Why ae911truth.org would make such an obvious and patently false statement is the question on the table.



[edit on 15-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Crito
How many times does the 9/11 scientific truth movement have to debunk the same old al-Qaeda conspiracy theories?

I see nothing about this guy to determine what qualifications he has.

This guy's physics gets a little mangled along the way. He got the velocity of 8.63 m/sec correct for the top section falling one floor (in Part 2), but after that things go amiss.

I'll let University of Wisconsin Professor of physics, Steven Dutch, explain:

The fall doesn't have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the fasteners pop and the welds break. The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There's no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.

If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's.

This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories - why waste the steel? Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one, and the dynamic loads on the points that actually resist the fall - the welds and the rivets, will be far greater. If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you're talking hundreds of g's. In the south tower, where the top 25 or so stories fell, the impact load at eight g's would be equivalent to 200 stories, or twice the total height of the building. Some conspiracy buffs argue that engineering standards require a safety factor several times the actual load on the structure, but the dynamic loads would far overwhelm those standards.

This, by the way, is the reason controlled demolition works at all. If physics worked the way 9-11 conspiracy buffs think, once you blew the lower stories of a building, the upper part would just drop and remain intact. Of course it doesn't because once the building begins to fall, the dynamic loads are far beyond the static strength of the building.

The full paper at:
www.uwgb.edu...

[edit on 15-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by esdad71
Those were separate fires which included the elevator shafts which made waterfalls of exploding jet fuel.

Once I read this part, I had to stop reading. Jet fuel (kerosene), or any hydrocarbon fuel, does not explode. Excluding FAE's which are designed to explode, pouring any kind of fuel down a tube, elevator shaft, onto the ground, or wherever, and then igniting it will not make it explode and it doesn't matter how many times you try it.

This is a very simple experiment that anyone can try at home. Many fuel stations sell kerosene. It doesn't help one's cause to perpetuate myths and made-up scenarios that don't happen in the real world.





[edit on 15-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by ImAPepper

She didn't survive. She actually jumped to her death.

Re: Edna Cintron

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/983b61bb5ad1.jpg[/atsimg]

You dishonor this brave lady, and all of the other victims of the 9-11 perps imapepper.

There is no evidence that one single person in the towers gave up on rescue by the brave NYFD firemen, and jumped to their death.

It makes much more sense that they were blown off their precarious perches by the multiple explosions witnessed by numerous firemen and reporters and civilians, or knocked off their precarious perches by the explosions rocking the buildings.

They had survived the plane crashes and the clouds of jet fuel burning off and the alleged infernos, and the fires were going out, and the firemen were on the way; so why should they jump?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06098ae8274c.jpg[/atsimg]

who can really understand what goes through a persons mind when they are TRAPPED, unable to get out of a burning building due to fires, smoke, heat and collapse.

even if most knew that a rescue was on the way, the situation that some were in and the feelings expressed by calls made to emergency services in this reguard shows how overwhelmed these persons felt.

Actually, here is a link to a video that will show you not only people were jumping way before the collapse initiated but they were mistaken for explosions. They sound like explosions. I have mentioned this before but recently went to go find a link again.

Link

I would also like to suggest to anyone who is interested in the stories of those who perished and lived pick up the book 102 minutes. It is nothing but accounts from that day..no politics...no conspiracy...just a memory of those who died.

This is also a nice article about when they started to jump.
Link

This is directly from the article

They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building's fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors -- the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. One photograph, taken at a distance, shows people jumping in perfect sequence, like parachutists, forming an arc composed of three plummeting people, evenly spaced. Indeed, there were reports that some tried parachuting, before the force generated by their fall ripped the drapes, the tablecloths, the desperately gathered fabric, from their hands. They were all, obviously, very much alive on their way down, and their way down lasted an approximate count of ten seconds. They were all, obviously, not just killed when they landed but destroyed, in body though not, one prays, in soul. One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman's body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph -- the redemptive tableau -- of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world.

Hopefully this helps clear up the fact that not only were people committing suicide before the alleged explosions but we have video,audio and eyewitness accounts.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Once I read this part, I had to stop reading. Jet fuel (kerosene), or any hydrocarbon fuel, does not explode. Excluding FAE's which are designed to explode, pouring any kind of fuel down a tube, elevator shaft, onto the ground, or wherever, and then igniting it will not make it explode and it doesn't matter how many times you try it.

Kerosene or other hydrocarbons dont explode?

Thats news to me considering a fuel -air explosion is what powers your car!

When I look at the gas detector in my fire truck has several dozen
different hydrocarbons with the explosive limits in its memory -
including jet fuel aka kerosene. So if not explosive why list them
and their explosive characteristics?

Problem is not the fuel itself, but the mixture of fuel and air . A fine suspension of fuel droplets or aerosol is highly explosive. Seen this
up close and personal in chemical plant when fighting fire of spilled
solvent (toluene). Massive fireball blew out the windows in the room
we were advancing hose line into .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Then could you please tell me what causes the explosions upon impact in the WTC 1 and 2? If it was not jet fuel then what was it? We are talking about the flaming inferno so the fire started somewhere. I thought it would have been the 1000's of gallons of fuel that was loaded for a transcontinental flight.

Originally posted by esdad71
Those were separate fires which included the elevator shafts which made waterfalls of exploding jet fuel.

One problem with this is that there is only one elevator shaft that goes from the upper floors where the planes hit to the sub basement.

If you look at all the parts and not single out the instances of fire you see that it was uncontrollable.

Probelm with this is that most photos, videos and experts agree that the fires were oxygen starved and did not burn long enough or hot enough to cause a collapse.

Originally posted by jthomas
You can see in the pictures and videos that the major fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and above and no fireman had yet reached them.

So you would agree then that the official story is wrong then about the large jet fuel fires on the lower floors and sub basements.

Originally posted by thedman

reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Once I read this part, I had to stop reading. Jet fuel (kerosene), or any hydrocarbon fuel, does not explode. Excluding FAE's which are designed to explode, pouring any kind of fuel down a tube, elevator shaft, onto the ground, or wherever, and then igniting it will not make it explode and it doesn't matter how many times you try it.

Kerosene or other hydrocarbons dont explode?

Thats news to me considering a fuel -air explosion is what powers your car!

When I look at the gas detector in my fire truck has several dozen
different hydrocarbons with the explosive limits in its memory -
including jet fuel aka kerosene. So if not explosive why list them
and their explosive characteristics?

Problem is not the fuel itself, but the mixture of fuel and air . A fine suspension of fuel droplets or aerosol is highly explosive. Seen this
up close and personal in chemical plant when fighting fire of spilled
solvent (toluene). Massive fireball blew out the windows in the room
we were advancing hose line into .

I am no genius but unless the twin towers were actually giant pistons I don't think it would be wise to compare an internal combustion engine to what happened on 9/11. First you need small amounts of fuel (as air to fuel ratio is factored in here) mixed with air intake, COMPRESSION, and finally a spark to ignite the compressed finely tuned mixture.
auto.howstuffworks.com... --- it is actually quite a well timed out process.

It is easy to confuse the two though, I mean I think they should stop selling those kerosene lamps, because they are basically a bomb right?

"When I look at my GAS detector in my fire truck" please tell me what exactly the explosive characteristics of liquid kerosene are in your 'gas' chart?

"A fine suspension of fuel droplets or aerosol is highly explosive." Sure but we are assuming that there was a lot of fuel for this funny scenario.

I wish someone would calculate the mathematical chances for:

1 day out of 125 years ( 45625 days ) of steel frame structures, and not one, not even two, but THREE high rises collapse due to fire damage. Has not happened before, and has not happened since.

as well as multiple planes being hijacked, on the same day, with box knifes, against military trained pilots in all of the planes.

as well as norad with 100% intercept rate (until that day of course) failing to intercept these planes.

I told my buddy who was in the air force that norad didn't even scramble jets in time, and he laughed and told me that in order for norad to fail in its objective it would take nothing short of a divine miracle, and he said that, that fact alone was a dead giveaway that it was inside job...

So either this was the terrorists lucky day, or well I think we know what the other option is...

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
You can see in the pictures and videos that the major fires were burning on the 80th floor of WTC 2 and above and no fireman had yet reached them.

So you would agree then that the official story is wrong then about the large jet fuel fires on the lower floors and sub basements.

I have no disagreement that fuel ignited and flowed down the elevator shafts. But that has nothing to do with where the firemen who were on the 78th and 79th floor and the fact that the major fires were burning above them.

Would you agree that ae911thruth.org's statement is false?

Remember, ae911truth states quite clearly in the video:

”Either there were emergency teams operating in the building, or there was a tremendous inferno of sustained temperatures as required to obliterate steel.

“The two possibilities are mutually exclusive.”

Originally posted by esdad71



Hopefully this helps clear up the fact that not only were people committing suicide before the alleged explosions but we have video,audio and eyewitness accounts.

Going back to the original statement that brought Edna up, she DID in fact survive the plane impact and the supposed steel bending heat. If the temperatures were anywhere near what we are being told by the OS, then she and her clothing would have ignited long before she had to chance to decide to jump.

The point was that she survived the heat that was supposed to be so intense that it was warping the steel that was melted by jet fuel according to ABC news.