| 9-11 - Ten Years Ago; 11th year update - Now 14 years | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2011, 05:28 PM (4,096 Views) | |
| kbp | Sep 15 2011, 09:06 PM Post #91 |
|
I don't mind reviewing what they classify as fact and sound theories. I'm one to question many things and it never hurts to consider both sides. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 16 2011, 09:11 AM Post #92 |
|
Firefighters question many things regarding that day and the quality of the 911 Commission's report. Their website speaks to their concerns: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ Some of the concerns are reflected in the following statement by a retired Lt. of the NYFD below: An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11! -Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret) Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal. ************* The discussion about Building 7 is interesting. Part of the above website deals with Building #7. There are photos of Towers 3, 4, and 6-- all of which were closer to the twin towers than building 7. Towers 3, 4, and 6 all sustained major crush damage but remained standing, but not building 7. http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158 **************** The fire fighing science is interesting, too. For example, the difference between fuel-air explosions and solid explosions which cause "high-order damage" -- the damage a "result of rapid rate of pressure rise". http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ (Scroll down about half way) “HIGH EXPLOSIVES” NFPA 921 “18.12.2 High Exlosives…The effects produced by diffuse phase (i.e., fuel-air) explosions and solid explosives are very different. In a diffuse phase explosion (usually deflagration), structural damage will tend to be uniform and omnidirectional, and there will be relatively widespread evidence of burning, scorching, and blistering. In contrast, the rate of combustion of a solid explosive is extremely fast in comparison to the speed of sound. Therefore, pressure does not equalize through the explosion volume and extremely high pressures are generated near the explosion. At the location of the explosion, there should be evidence of crushing, splintering, and shattering effects produced by the higher pressures. Away from the source of the explosion, there is usually very little evidence of intense burning or scorching, except where hot shrapnel or firebrands have landed on combustible materials.” 18.12.2 is very clear. Fuel-air explosions (i.e.- JET FUEL) will be relatively widespread and there will be evidence of burning, scorching, and blistering. If the lobby truly “blew out” from the jet fuel explosion we would see extensive burning, scorching, and blistering. And, think about it, the elevator shafts do not stop in the lobby, they went below the lobby, so why did this apparent “fireball” pick the lobby to exit? Now, carefully look at this video, and you be the judge. Do you see any signs of burning, scorching, or blistering? On your size-up pay close attention to the plants and the ceiling…do you see ANY soot? is this what you would expect to see after a “jet-fueled fireball” blew out the lobby? Does this match the damage we would expect to see with solid explosives? (i.e. crushing, splintering, and shattering effects produced by higher pressures). (See video of firemen in the lobby of one of the twin towers) ************ I think the gist of what the firefighters are saying on this website is that they are not satisfied with the investigation, for example, that exotic accelerantes were not tested for, according to the website. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 19 2011, 09:50 AM Post #93 |
|
Recently a group of architects and engineers came out with a video questioning the 9-11 Commission Report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=youtu.be It is a long video which presents their case that many questions are not answered by the official report. Particularly, that WTC building #7 collapsed solely due to fire. As structural engineers and architects, their business is building high rise buildings to withstand fire. They contend that the WTC buildings which collapsed on 9-11 would be the first steel framed buildings to do so, especially building 7 which was not hit by a plane. I suppose to say that building 7 came down by fire to these engineers and architects is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. It got their attention. The video shows a number of scientists, engineers, and architects and gives their creditionals, such as educational degrees and years of experience. What I remember of the video is the scientists and architects disbelief that, in towers 1 and 2, the building offered no resistance to the upper floors collapsing. One of the scientists said that there should have been a jolt or some evidence that the lower floors were able to offer some degree of resistance. That the towers fell in near free fall speed without the supports offering any resistance is felt to be highly suspicious. Also, there was molten metal, like lava, at the scene which burned yellow. The official report is that the molten metal was aluminum from the plane which hit the tower, yet the scientists say molten aluminum would be silver in color. The molten metal, which is seen pouring out of one of the upper windows of the twin towers, is yellow in color which to the scientists, signify steel, not aluminum. There is even a Journal of 9/11 Studies which is exploring the whole issue of building collapse. *************** It would be fair to point out that all three buildings which collapsed had deisel fuel tanks of various sizes within them. The website below mentions the fuel tanks and gives a timeline of events and seems to be well sourced: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center&timeline=complete_911_timeline The timeline reports on some interesting things such as the Secret Service had offices in building 7 and is reported to have had a Stinger missle there. It shows there was confusion and lack of communication. This website tells of the main areas of fire between floors 7-9 and 11-13 in building 7 which was not being fought by the firefighters fearing a collapse of the building. What building 7 housed is below: http://www.wtc7.net/background.html |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 19 2011, 10:56 AM Post #94 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
A stinger missile would do absolutely nothing to the WTC7 building if it's warhead or fuel exploded, if that's where they were going. Someone might have heard it, but that's about it. How did we get pure molten aluminum at the WTC scene? Pure is the only way it will not glow brightly. I think it's safe to say that any molten aluminum at the WTC site was contaminated with all sorts of stuff that burned brightly in the molten aluminum's high temps. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 19 2011, 04:43 PM Post #95 |
|
Was it molten aluminum -- pure or not-- or molten steel? Was the molten metal tested or just assumed to be aluminum. The history commons website, which seems to be temporarily out of service, stated that the official report had building 7 sustaining damage after the second twin tower collapsed, not the first. The first collapse was about 9:28 and the second collapse was about 10:30 (going from memory). Barry Jennings and the corporation counsel arrive at the mayor's command center about 9 a.m. that morning to find no one was there. They start down the stairs and Jennings states hearing an explosion on the 6th floor which destroyed the stairway enough that the two needed to go back up the stairs to the 8th floor where they waited until being rescued at about 12 or 12:15 p.m. If the report states that the damage to building 7 occurred with the collapse of the second tower, what explains this explosion that made the two have to retreat to the 8th floor and keep them trapped there? That explosion would have occurred about an hour or so earlier than the collapse of the second tower. So perhaps the stinger missle exploded for some reason which seems unlikely, but who knows? It's too bad the history commons website is not up, because it gave a lot of useful information about that day starting 6:45 or 7:45 a.m. (from memory) that a drill was going on that day at building 7 and the fire alarm system was on "test". Little tidbits of information such as a report of a large amount of gold being in one of the towers and that a large basement under building 5 held a crushed truck and cars and gold ingots were found in this area. Other info includes that most of the occupants of the towers left after the first plane hit which saved many people's lives. Witnesses said they were told the second building was secure and they could go back to their offices and similar reassuring pronouncements. Most disregarded these pronouncements and continued to leave the building. At one point, almost knocking over someone with a megaphone who was encouraging them back up the stairs. Floors 11-13 of building 7 housed the Securities and Exchange Commission and anything there must have been destroyed by fire and collapse of the building. Investigation of Enron or Worldcom or whatever gone? |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 19 2011, 05:59 PM Post #96 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
The claim is that it can't be aluminum because it's glowing orange/red. That claim is very obviously incorrect. It most certainly could be aluminum. We don't need steel. Steel is not necessary to falsify the claim. Steel is not necessary to fit what was observed. Aluminum does both nicely. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 20 2011, 10:42 PM Post #97 |
|
Here is an untold story. Tom Hanks narrates the epic story of the 9/11 boatlift that evacuated half a million people from the stricken piers and seawalls of Lower Manhattan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg Quite Moving! Unbelievable it was the largest evacuation by boat of people in history Edited by Baldo, Sep 20 2011, 10:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rusty Dog | Sep 21 2011, 07:11 AM Post #98 |
|
Oh my goodness, I just cried throughout that. I wasn't aware of all those boats and those hero captains. Watching that piece, the intense feelings of that day came back even stronger than last week's remembering. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 21 2011, 07:23 AM Post #99 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
There are a lot of little known stories from that day. It makes me so proud and so mad at the same time. Especially these days. |
![]() |
|
| Rusty Dog | Sep 21 2011, 01:28 PM Post #100 |
|
That is exactly right... Well said. .Thank you. |
![]() |
|
| Foxlair45 | Sep 21 2011, 05:17 PM Post #101 |
|
Thank you....that was beautiful. I recall a brief mention of this right after 9/11, but there was never a follow up. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 21 2011, 06:57 PM Post #102 |
|
That was an wonderful, uplifting video. Very inspirational. It was extremely well done with excellent visuals-- exceptional photography. Tom Hanks as narrator was limited which was good. The men who captained the boats were the primary "stars" if you will. Mr. Ardolino, the skipper of the Amberjack looked like he could have been from central casting. A gritty New Yorker. His speaking voice was excellent and was at the beginning and end of the film. "If you want to do something... do it". |
![]() |
|
| Foxlair45 | Sep 21 2011, 08:27 PM Post #103 |
|
He said he never wanted to say "I should have....." That really resonated with me. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 22 2011, 07:18 AM Post #104 |
|
The idea of steel being molten rather than aluminum is important because of the suspicion that the steel supports of the building could not have melted from the temperatures in a fuel fire, but from a exotic substance such as thermite, which would provide the temperatures needed to destroy steel. I know nothing of the properties of metals but you could submit a paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as to why Dr. Jones is incorrect about why he thinks the molten metal is steel and not aluminum. Even if the molten metal is aluminum, pure or otherwise, how does one explain the utter failure of those steel supports in all three buildings, particularly building 7? Edited by foxglove, Sep 22 2011, 07:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 22 2011, 07:51 AM Post #105 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Anyone who doesn't know that steel weakens appreciably when you heat it up, and will not carry the load anymore, is not going to listen to me. Anyone who does not know that steel expands when you heat it up, and will no longer stay where it was, is not going to listen to me. Why anyone needs the failure of steel beams in a fire explained is beyond me. My new avatar is me, but I'm not sure I'll keep it. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






9:49 AM Jul 11