9/11: The WTC Elevator Key

reply to post by Alfie1


Thanks for the link ! It didn't get you anywhere either (whatever that means).
I really like how Bill Crowley explains what happened. I think he really clears things up in this clip. More people should see the video, don't you agree?

Originally posted by Alfie1

If your prime bit of evidence in support of a UA 93 shoot-down is Rumsfeld you are really clutching at straws.

What the heck are you talking about? I posted a ton of links that show how even federal investigators were not ruling out a shoot-down. Rumsfeld was the least of them.

Same old stupid tactics....

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Thanks for the link ! It didn't get you anywhere either (whatever that means).
I really like how Bill Crowley explains what happened. I think he really clears things up in this clip. More people should see the video, don't you agree?

Not really. It shows the confusion in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. I prefer more reflective analysis when the facts are in.

reply to post by Alfie1

Well, I suppose somebody could have been smoking in an elevator against the rules. But then I do note she says she was heading into the lobby about 0845 and I seem to remember a Boeing 767 heavy with 30 tons of fuel crashed into the building at 0846. Sounds off the wall I know but you don't suppose there could be a connection ? I am sure you are aware there are other accounts of people being badly burned by fire from elevators.

I like your theory of smokers in elevator against the rules, but I think the Boeing 767 had something to do with it. Especially when you consider that burning jet fuel also was able to destroy a control room on the 22nd floor and blew out windows on multiple floors. You see I know all that because FEMA actually conducted a study and explained everything.

"Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris." (FEMA WTC report, chapter 2)

Oh wait...

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Thanks for the link ! It didn't get you anywhere either (whatever that means).
I really like how Bill Crowley explains what happened. I think he really clears things up in this clip. More people should see the video, don't you agree?

Not really. It shows the confusion in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. I prefer more reflective analysis when the facts are in.

Confusion? Well that's what he is clearing up in the press conference. You should watch it again to refresh your memory.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes but the unfortunate thing about the design was floors could collapse internally because they were effectively suspended between the outer wall and core.

None of your posts make any sense what soever. Can you explain what you are talking about?

reply to post by maxella1


Have you ever done any research into how the WTC were designed? Any at all? The floors were suspended between the exterior and interior columns. You can look up the WTC "tube-in-tube" design as there are a few different types of "tube-in-tube". I would start with NIST's report on the WTC.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by maxella1

 

Same thing that caused the damage to the building, the fireballs and the impact, the movement of the Tower, etc. If there were bombs in the 22nd floor, then why did so many people manage to get out of the North Tower through the 22nd floor?

edit on 5/18/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Sorry but this fireball theory is a load of rubbish.
Wish some of you people would wake up !

Yes, I expect this woman just imagined getting 80% burns :-

www.nypost.com...

I was referring to the fireballs supposedly causing enough damage to the buildings as to bring them down.

reply to post by lambros56

I was referring to the fireballs supposedly causing enough damage to the buildings as to bring them down.

Those were no ordinary jet fuel fireballs, al Qaeda fireballs are a lot smarter and stronger.

Originally posted by lambros56


I was referring to the fireballs supposedly causing enough damage to the buildings as to bring them down.

Typical response from the truther side everything in isolation please show were anyone said the fireballs brought the buildings down

The helped to cause damage and may have helped to remove some fire protection from stee

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes but the unfortunate thing about the design was floors could collapse internally because they were effectively suspended between the outer wall and core.

None of your posts make any sense what soever. Can you explain what you are talking about?

Have a look here



NOW even someone like YOU should understand

Ps DON'T build that deck of yours yourself

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lambros56


I was referring to the fireballs supposedly causing enough damage to the buildings as to bring them down.

Typical response from the truther side everything in isolation please show were anyone said the fireballs brought the buildings down

The helped to cause damage and may have helped to remove some fire protection from stee

edit on 21-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

GenRadek stated it on the previous page ( 13 ) .