The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by thedman
How long do you think it took them to reach the 78 th floor? Even with
help of freight elevator still had climb of nearly 40 floors . Were only just reaching impact area when building collapsed.....

Originally posted by jthomas
They reported what they, themselves, saw. No mystery there.

So your agreeing the official story is wrong then about all the jet fuel fires on the lower floors?



[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]

What "official story" about jet fuel fires on the lowers floors? Where, Remisne? Where? 10th floor? 50th? The only fires ever mentioned below the impact floors were in the elevator shafts, where jetfuel sent a massive fireball down the shafts and out on the concorse and out elevator doors. Those did not start any large fires. All the fires were at and then above the impact floors.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
I am interested how Architects and Engineers intend to explain its discrepancy and whether they will correct it and when.

You can contact AE911T with your discrepancies and ask them yourself if they will correct it and when.

I have. Without response. But YOU should be asking them also.

I repeat:
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. There is no mystery about that, is there?

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.

I would lay any amount of money down that if firefighters had made it to 80, the alleged inferno would be on 81 instead of 80.

But you know that is false since we can all see where the fires were.

It's quite convenient that just when firefighters were getting ready to start putting out fires in the south tower, that's the tower that collapsed first, even though it sustained less structural damage than the north tower.

Quite convenient for whom, _BoneZ_? So far, the only ones for whom it is convenient is ae911truth.org. You know that the South Tower had a greater mass above the damaged area than did WTC 1. It seems that you are defending A&E's misrepresentation of what the firemen actually saw and where they were.

"They" had to hurry up and knock down the south tower before the fires were put out because that would destroy the official story that "they" had planned.

I'm sorry that there are still those in the 9/11 Truth Movement who claim the firemen were "in on it." I guess we now know one of the reasons ae911truth.org found it convenient to entirely misrepresent the firemen in its "recruitment" video.

I wonder what the families of those firemen who died, and their firemen friends who are alive with the horrific memories, are going to say when they hear about it.

I think I can guess.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by jthomas]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by jthomas
According to all of the evidence, there is no mystery of where the major fires were burning and that firemen and occupants weren't burning to death where there were no fires.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the official story was wrong about the so called inferno of jet fule fires on the lower floors.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by REMISNE
With the impact of the plane, jet fuel was shot down elevator and utility shafts.

I'm not so sure about that. In fact, the more I review testimony from Willie Rodriguez and other people who heard and felt the explosions from below prior to plane impact, the more I am starting to believe that the fireballs in the elevators may have been created from the explosions in the basement instead of from the jet fuel fires.

And obviously if that is the case, the fireballs in the elevators from jet fuel would just be the cover story- to conceal the explosives down below.

But I realize this may not be possible due to the location and depth of the various elevator shafts... Will check later, gotta run.

[edit on Sat Mar 20th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I'm not so sure about that.

If you reead my post you would see that i DO NOT agree witht he official story either.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
According to all of the evidence, there is no mystery of where the major fires were burning and that firemen and occupants weren't burning to death where there were no fires.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the official story was wrong about the so called inferno of jet fule fires on the lower floors.

There is no "official story." There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Your entire statement is actually false about the elevators. Here is a link to a thread that gives a direct account of the explosions on 'impact'.

Originally posted by jthomas

There is no "official story." There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Attempt at getting an answer to this question #413.

-What do you call the story told to us by officials if not an official story?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

There is no "official story." There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Attempt at getting an answer to this question #413.

-What do you call the story told to us by officials if not an official story?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

What "official story?" Define it specifically.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

There is no "official story." There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Attempt at getting an answer to this question #413.

-What do you call the story told to us by officials if not an official story?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

What "official story?" Define it specifically.

You really cannot answer my question at all, can you?

This is how this works. I asked you something. You then asked me something. You want your answer, I get mine first.

I am not the only person to pose this question to you and it is not the first time by far. You have always failed to answer it. I guess you do not really have any faith in what you say or else you would be able to explain it.

Do I need to ask it again or would you rather just pretend I did not ask at all and move along?

Your question does not even make sense. You are asking me about a specific "official story." Please read my question again and see if you can make your question make a little sense after you answer me.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Excuse me, but my question is right on, and goes straight to the point we skeptics made in 2002 when it first became overwhelmingly obvious to us.

The term "official story" was first used on Sept 12, 2001, barely 24 hours after the event. I've seen it used whenever and wherever it is convenient to use, no matter to what it is used to refer.

It is a term that absolves the user from responsibility. "Ah, that's what the 'official story' says"; "Oh, you're just an 'official story believer'."

It is a classic propaganda term, having no actual meaning, but useful in conveying the user's prejudice, ignorance, and inability to address the subject at hand. The term, as used by the 9/11 Truth Movement has always been used to communicate a fundamental strawman of the highest order, a weakness and avoidance in the 9/11 Truth Movement's ability to bring actual evidence to the table. It is propaganda used to convince people that it is the valiant 9/11 Truth Movement up against this all-powerful, secret, government -- the "government" being the all-powerful entity that "obviously" has a "motive" and can "hide stuff" from us. And it can easily convince those less wary of what they are told as being "self-evident."

You just illustrated that for us. It is the foundation of all denial movements.

We skeptics of the 9/11 Truth Movement know the "government" neither was the source of the overwhelming independent evidence that converges on the conclusions that inform us, nor do they, or could they, control it. But it is highly convenient for the 9/11 Truth Movement when it can use a strawman instead of actual evidence.

So, I'll ask you again:

What "official story?" Define it specifically.

It's OK if you can't answer it. It might help you understand that the "official story" canard forms the foundation on quicksand that attempts to hold up the house of cards that is the 9/11 Truth Movement.





[edit on 20-3-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


I guess I have to ask you again first then. What do you call the "story" told by "officials?"

It is a simple question. I am not looking for lengthy diatribes. Just answer the question or move along, please.

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "official story

So what is the 9/11 commssion report, the media, and agencies like NIST ? I have always been told by others that the official story comes from them.

I gues you agree then that the offical story is not correct?.

There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Sorry but most of the evidence and official reports have not been released so you are being very dishonest when you say there is massive evidence.


[edit on 21-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

I guess I have to ask you again first then. What do you call the "story" told by "officials?"

I guess I have to ask you again, what "story?"

It is a simple question. I am not looking for lengthy diatribes. Just answer the question or move along, please.

I am sorry you don't like what I think about the term "official story."

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "official story

So what is the 9/11 commssion report, the media, and agencies like NIST ? I have always been told by others that the official story comes from them.

So your definition of the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official story"; media reports are "official storires"; and the NIST Reports are "official stories."

What happens when these so-called "stories" are at variance with one another? How do you determine which one is the "correct story" or if any of them are correct? How do you know?

There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Sorry but most of the evidence and official reports have not been released so you are being very dishonest when you say there is massive evidence.

From where does the evidence come?

I wouldn't claim that evidence that hasn't been released is not evidence. There are 2.5 millions documents locked away in the Library of Commerce that the 9/11 Commission used and I certainly wouldn't claim they are not evidence nor would the 9/11 Commission.

But there is also the evidence that is available. That evidence forms the basis of what we know about the WTC collapses, AA77's crash into the Pentagon, the hijackers, and AA93's hijacking and crash in Pennsylvania. You, apparently, believe there is no such evidence, that it's all "official stories", whether reports from investigations, or reporting from the media (and who knows what you have left out), that can be at variance with each other.

So, how does that all work and how do you resolve "stories" that are at variance with one another?

Originally posted by jthomas

So your definition of the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official story"; media reports are "official storires"; and the NIST Reports are "official stories."

What happens when these so-called "stories" are at variance with one another? How do you determine which one is the "correct story" or if any of them are correct? How do you know?

Gosh, are you trying to say that all the stories we have been fed are not 100% in congruence with each other? Do you realize what something like that would mean? Can I ask for a 512th time what you would call a story told by officials?
Can you answer direct questions or just double talk, dodging, and running away type tactics?

All valid questions just for you!

Originally posted by jthomas
There is no "official story." There is only the evidence, massive independent, multiple lines of evidence that neither originated with, nor was controlled by, any "officials."

Claiming evidence exists does not make it so.

You are simply saying that the “official story” is not an official story but rather the true story.

We already understand that you believe the “official story” but repeatedly claiming that the official story is the true story is not the same thing as actually using evidence to prove it true.

The fact of the matter is that the “official story” has not been proved by concrete evidence. Repeatedly claiming that this evidence exists isn’t the same as providing evidence…

This is exactly why no alternative theory is necessary.

The “official story” is not based on tangible evidence.

I don’t need an alternative theory to recognize a lack of evidence for another.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

So your definition of the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official story"; media reports are "official storires"; and the NIST Reports are "official stories."

What happens when these so-called "stories" are at variance with one another? How do you determine which one is the "correct story" or if any of them are correct? How do you know?

Gosh, are you trying to say that all the stories we have been fed are not 100% in congruence with each other?

You haven't been fed "stories". You've been given evidence. But since 9/11 Truthers like to claim that there is nothing but "stories" that allows them to claim whatever they want as "stories", play them off each other, and ignore all that evidence that is inconvenient to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It has happened since day one and it happens in threads here all the time.

Do you realize what something like that would mean? Can I ask for a 512th time what you would call a story told by officials?

Answered. Read again.