|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 6:16:21 GMT -5
On the morning of the 11th Sept 2001 four planes were hijacked by 19 armed men. Four of these men were trained pilots. Two of these planes were crashed into the twin towers. The Twin Towers weren't designed to withstand such a high speed impact. Jet fuel spilled out of the planes immediately starting widespread fire over a large area, (4 cubic kilometres), jet fuel even spilled down the lift shafts. Lauren Manning suffered 82% burns to her body from burning jet fuel which exploded in the lobby en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_ManningThe impacts of the planes destroyed fireproofing systems and severed a large amount of load bearing columns. The office fires weakened the structures by >90% The buildings gave way to load and fell top down.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 19, 2013 7:53:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 19, 2013 7:55:42 GMT -5
"The office fires weakened the structures by >90%"
Really? All 3 structures? And that number is based on???
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 19, 2013 11:01:07 GMT -5
Fire weakened all three structures yes. All three were structurally damaged, all three were on fire all three were weakened by fire, all three had load bearing members that were weakened by >90% and failed under load.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 19, 2013 11:35:05 GMT -5
Fire weakened all three structures yes. All three were structurally damaged, all three were on fire all three were weakened by fire, all three had load bearing members that were weakened by >90% and failed under load. So you're saying you don't have an answer as to how you came up with that "The office fires weakened the structures [presumably all 3 since you didn't specify] by >90%". But you did change it to "all three had load bearing members that were weakened by >90% and failed under load". So which is it? And in either or both cases, again, how did you come up with the >90% figure?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 7:47:01 GMT -5
Since you still didn't answer how you came up with by >90%, one would have to assume you don't have an answer and therefore made this up (as typical of you). I will of course take it back if you do come up with a fact based answer.
You also said "jet fuel even spilled down the lift shafts. Lauren Manning suffered 82% burns to her body from burning jet fuel which exploded in the lobby".
I imagine you have something FACT BASED you can show to support your claim that the fuel "spilled down the lift shafts", caused the lobby to explode and that her burns were actually caused by the fire from the jet fuel? Or is that the same as your by >90% claim?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 20, 2013 12:35:26 GMT -5
Lauren Manning's burns prove fuel spilled down the lift shafts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_ManningFire temps were 1000C and as you know once steel hits 1000C it's strength is reduced by >90% and continues reducing until the melting point of 1540C. You've seen the steel temperature strength diagram enough times now. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 20, 2013 13:59:33 GMT -5
"Lauren Manning's burns prove fuel spilled down the lift shafts:"
How so? The link says: "A wave of burning jet fuel exploded from one of the elevator shafts, enveloping Manning and setting her aflame". There is no PROOF this is true, just a claim that you accept as true without NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Other eyewitness accounts claim there was an explosion in the lobby which could have been caused by any number of possible sources. In fact, the least likely possibility was that there was enough liquid fuel that could have reached the lobby and caused such a massive explosion in the lobby since most of the fuel exploded outside the building within seconds of impact, as seen on the videos.
"Fire temps were 1000C and as you know once steel hits 1000C it's strength is reduced by >90%"
And fire burns and water is wet. This is your answer? You first said "The office fires weakened the structures by >90%" then you changed it to "all three had load bearing members that were weakened by >90% and failed under load", now you changed it a third time with the above quote. Are you saying that the fire temperatures reached 1000C over 90% of all 3 buildings or what? Your claim is all over the place and changes with each post.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 3:37:32 GMT -5
Her burns are proof that this is true, the people who saved her life are proof that this is true. Jet fuel exploded in the lobby after pouring down the lift shafts. High explosives would have blown her to bits rather than engulf her in flame. Temp slice 1000C highest temp. At 1000C steel has less than 10% residual strength (as you know, you've seen the temperature / strength chart). Regarding molten steel, this 9/11'truth' photo is a doctored fake (source infowars): This one is real (source debunking911.com): The bright light in shot came from a firefighter's lamp. Same scene:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 7:43:54 GMT -5
"Her burns are proof that this is true, the people who saved her life are proof that this is true."
Her burns are NOT proof that your claim is true, it's just your opinion that that's what happened. Burns don't show that fuel came down the elevator shaft and exploded into the lobby, they're just burns. That there was an explosion in the lobby is well known, however, it could have been caused by explosives. There were hundreds of eyewitness accounts of explosions on 9/11.
As to the questions I asked you, don't worry, you don't have to answer them as you still haven't, it's just more of your made up s**t.
The molten metal issue under ALL 3 buildings is irrefutable, it lasted for several weeks, it was in the news almost daily and there were numerous eyewitness accounts. As to temperatures reaching 1000C, that would be virtually impossible in an office fire because kerosene (jet fuel) fire does not reach more than 800C in a diffuse fire so something else caused such temperatures if that even happened at all prior to the collapses.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 10:19:13 GMT -5
Fuel came down the lift shaft. When it reached the lobby of WTC 1 there was more air, it's rate of combustion increased explosively. This happened seconds after the impact of the plane. The fuel exploded when the lift car doors opened. The building collapsed top down and columns at the base of the building were still standing after the rest of the building had collapsed.
There were no RDX residues or other high explosive residues in the debris pile. There were RDX residues in the wreckage of TWA800 some five years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 10:31:35 GMT -5
Fuel came down the lift shaft. When it reached the lobby of WTC 1 there was more air, it's rate of combustion increased explosively. This happened seconds after the impact of the plane. The fuel exploded when the lift car doors opened. The building collapsed top down and columns at the base of the building were still standing after the rest of the building had collapsed. There were no RDX residues or other high explosive residues in the debris pile. There were RDX residues in the wreckage of TWA800 some five years earlier. Repeating your claims doesn't make any of them true. There is NO known evidence that any "fuel came down the lift shaft", much less that it caused an explosion in the lobby. And certainly you haven't provided any. At best it's a theory, a very unlikely one at that, not a provable fact. You think if I kept posting there is Tooth Fairy, it will eventually be true?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 21, 2013 10:47:33 GMT -5
Lauren Manning survived and she knows what happened. Repeating your claims doesn't make your claims true or change what happened to Lauren Manning.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 21, 2013 12:14:00 GMT -5
"Lauren Manning survived and she knows what happened."
Even Lauren Manning has no clue how she received those burns other than that there was an explosion. How could she possibly know that the theory that jet fuel came down the elevator shafts and caused an explosion is actually true or not?
"Repeating your claims doesn't make your claims true or change what happened to Lauren Manning."
I didn't make any repeated claims, YOU did, several of them. If you recall, you're the one who claimed fuel from the plane came down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby causing her burns. And when I asked you if you had anything to support your claim, all you kept doing was to cite that Manning was burned and making yet another claim that your original claim is true because she was burned. How ridiculous is that?
You also repeatedly made other claims that when I asked you to support, you did not and could not, all you did was repeat them as if repeating supported them. So why are you now trying to turn it around and pretending I made repeated claims? This is just more of your relentless fakery.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 22, 2013 12:57:06 GMT -5
Bob, Lauren Manning remembers everything. She got her burns when the lift doors opened and the fuel inside exploded due to backdraught and jet fuel fire enveloped her.
You know damn well the building was hit by a plane, and that the plane was fuelled. Some of that fuel went into the lift shafts, there was nothing to stop the fuel going down the lift shafts as the only surrounding substance around the lift shafts was gypsum 'drywall' board, which the plane smashed through. What's the fuel going to do when above a hole ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 22, 2013 17:41:43 GMT -5
There are 4 posts prior to this one where I've been telling you that you have not provided any evidence about Manning knowing how fuel allegedly came down the elevator shaft, exploded and burned her. Each time you ducked and did not provide anything other than she was burned. You felt or pretended to feel that that's all the evidence necessary, which is ludicrous. Finally, in your last post, you provided something. Why didn't you post that the first time I told you that there is no evidence? This is just more evidence that you just want to remain an obvious fake.
Anyway, thanks for that information, I never heard about that interview. I like everything I can get my hands on regarding 9/11 and this is one more piece to the puzzle. See, I knew you are quite good at doing research, you know about many things I posted here as well, you just like to automatically discard anything and everything that does not agree with the official narrative.
There are many accounts of explosions, some even BEFORE the first plane hit. All accounts of explosions should have been INVESTIGATED, including the one cited by Manning. None were that I heard about, instead NIST denied any explosions and certainly the 9/11 Commission never investigated explosions. If you have anything contrary to that, please post it. Thanks.
BTW, I've been to the World Trade Center and once had a meeting at Windows on the World. I had to take 2 elevators because the first one didn't go all the way to the top. I cannot remember what floor I had to get off to catch the 2nd elevator though.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 3:59:31 GMT -5
There's no allegedly about it, it did come down the lift shafts. The answer is simple as to how: GRAVITY. How it exploded in the lobby is simple too: Backdraught when fires are suddenly provided much greater oxygen.
Video of how backdraughts and flashover explosions can happen in fires:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 9:36:40 GMT -5
There's no allegedly about it, it did come down the lift shafts. The answer is simple as to how: GRAVITY. How it exploded in the lobby is simple too: Backdraught when fires are suddenly provided much greater oxygen. Video of how backdraughts and flashover explosions can happen in fires: Right so why do you suppose there never was any investigation of the hundreds of accounts of explosions on 9/11? Or do you feel that an investigation into 9/11 should automatically ignore anything that's inconvenient or may contradict the official narrative?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 15:29:48 GMT -5
Fuel exploded in the plane crashes. Batteries are capable of exploding and were in the vicinity of impact. Power transformers are capable of exploding and are found in skyscrapers. Cars exploded after being set alight by burning debris.
But crucially no residues of RDX or any other high explosive were found in the debris. No blasting caps or detcord was found in the debris either and such things cannot be hidden.
Bang doesn't always mean bomb Bob. Your so called 'truth' movement is a source of disinformation and outright lies. If there had have been pre planted bombs there would not have been any way to hide the remnants. The twin towers collapsed top down beginning with structural failure at the impact points and no explosives could have survived the crashes without immediate detonation.
WTC3 collapsed after being hit by debris from the twin towers. WTC's 4,5, &6 were severely damaged after being hit by debris from the twin towers. WTC7 was severely damaged by debris from WTC1, caught fire and burned for seven hours, bulging and leaning before giving up the ghost and collapsing. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas collapsed after being hit by debris from the twin towers.
All the answers lie with the crashes of jets into the twin towers and the damage done by impact and fire.
All other bangs were secondary effects brought about by the impact of airliners and widespread fire destroying the twin towers.
Lots of cars were set on fire by the debris of the twin towers and fuel tanks exploded. Most of your bangs are explained right there.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 19:37:23 GMT -5
"Fuel exploded in the plane crashes. Batteries are capable of exploding and were in the vicinity of impact. Power transformers are capable of exploding and are found in skyscrapers. Cars exploded after being set alight by burning debris."
Yep lots of things go boom, so again:
1. Why do you suppose there never was any investigation of the hundreds of accounts of explosions on 9/11?
2. Do you feel that an investigation into 9/11 should automatically ignore anything that's inconvenient or may contradict the official narrative?
You keep on ducking the questions, why? You really don't need to answer, I can understand if you don't want to answer because the questions are too difficult for you to understand.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 2:58:03 GMT -5
There was an investigation into 9/11, there was no need to investigate exploding cars as part of the study of the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7.
I feel glad that the investigation into 9/11 were not side tracked by idiots who distort & misrepresent the facts & time line of events. Doctored videos and doctored photos are not evidence. You yourself were fooled by people who claimed that the Flight 77 exit hole was the entry hole. By now you should know better than to be fooled by those liars but you keep falling for their big con.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 7:59:43 GMT -5
"There was an investigation into 9/11, there was no need to investigate exploding cars as part of the study of the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7."
I know that was difficult for you I had to ask you twice before I got your answer.
Standard NFPA protocol, developed with the help of NIST, calls for an investigation into explosives and explosions. So in your opinion, you agree then that there was no need to investigate the hundreds of accounts of explosions, NONE of which that I know of said anything about exploding cars, because it was inconvenient. And so because there was no investigation into that (among many other things), no real investigation took place. A real investigation does not deliberately leave anything open, especially not one that must follow standard specific guidelines. But even if ALL of them only mentioned exploding cars, there should have been an investigation into that anyway. Why do you believe there should not be? Too inconvenient?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 13:45:57 GMT -5
Not inconvenient no, exploding cars are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 25, 2013 23:32:26 GMT -5
Not inconvenient no, exploding cars are irrelevant. Actually nothing is "irrelevant" in an investigation into 9/11, especially not exploding cars. It's obvious you have not a clue how to conduct a forensic criminal investigation, or at least you pretend ignorance. In your ideal 9/11 world, everything that might reveal anything that has any chance of contradicting the official narrative is "irrelevant". And that's exactly the ideology used by the 9/11 Commission and NIST.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 26, 2013 3:08:34 GMT -5
The relevant issues are hijacked planes, the failure of ATC procedures to deal with the hijackings, the lack of effective Norad procedures to deal with this, the crashes and the damage done by the crashes. The fires and the effects of fire upon steel, the bending moments of steel, the effect of load and the effect of dynamic load on the lower block below the impact floors when the impact floors failed.
Cars exploding after catching fire from burning debris after the buildings fell are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 19, 2013 8:06:02 GMT -5
No need for duplicate spam threads Bob, merge your nonsense into this thread instead of spamming.
There were no bombs in the lobby. The blast came directly out of the lift car when burning jet fuel met with increased supplies of oxygen and exploded, Lauren Manning was badly burned when the lift doors opened. She'd have been blown to bits if a bomb had gone off. Furthermore, after the fuel explosion in the lobby the building was still standing and stood for some time before collapsing top down.
|
|
|
Post by fwiw2 on Nov 19, 2013 8:22:53 GMT -5
And those new $100 bills have tracking transmitters in them that can be detected through a foot of reinforced concrete for more than a mile. You must bury them in lead pipes at least 6 feet deep.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 19, 2013 8:28:48 GMT -5
"No need for duplicate spam threads Bob"What I posted was not spam, unless you believe all your threads are spam as well hypocrite. I don't take dictation from you. If you want to start threads, feel free to do so. I don't try to stop you so quit trying to silence me via your bulls**t, it doesn't work. You should know that by now fake one. "There were no bombs in the lobby"You weren't there despite your claims that you know everything. You know a lot less than NIST does and only what you were fed by NIST. There are multiple eyewitness claims of EXPLOSIONS in the lobby. There is NO EVIDENCE that any of these explosions in the lobby had anything to do with jet fuel. In fact, that it might have makes very little sense given that there were elevators in the elevator shafts which would have dispersed any fuel, the locations of the only 3 shafts that ran top to bottom, the amount of fuel that could possibly have made its way all the way to the lobby and many other criteria. And NIST does not do anything more than speculate on that issue, neither do you. " NIST admitted to the presence of an incendiary explosion at the concourse level and to the deaths and injuries caused by it, stating, a “fireball killed or injured several occupants in the Concourse Level lobby (NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p 73).” However, a scientific explanation was never provided. Instead, an untested hypothesis was given as fact. digwithin.net/2013/11/17/jet_fuel/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 19, 2013 8:40:52 GMT -5
Quit whining faker, you've been caught in a lie (again).
Eyewitnesses say fuel exploded in the lobby out of the lift cars. The lobby structure remained standing and so the explosions cannot have been bombs as the structure would not have remained standing and would have given way.
You keep trying to twist the facts to fit your controlled demolition conspiracy THEORY and stop spamming, there's enough existing threads about this without you spamming new ones because you don't like the truth that exists in the other threads that debunks your bulls**t.
Back to the start, at the flight schools, terrorists learned to fly and passed their commercial pilots exams to gain commercial pilots licences. From there they undertook training on official Boeing 737 simulators. They prepared, they hijacked, they crashed jet airliners full of fuel and people into buildings.
You have no idea how silly the things you say are.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Nov 19, 2013 8:45:24 GMT -5
"Eyewitnesses say fuel exploded in the lobby"
No eyewitness can possibly know what exploded in the lobby fake one. Eyewitnesses have not conducted any forensic investigation as to what caused the explosion(s) in the lobby, no one did. Talk about being caught in a lie, this one is clearly and demonstrably absurd.
"You have no idea how silly the things you say are."
See above silly one.
|
|