Could the fire burn down WTC?

Fact or Fiction? Discuss here.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I see the issue of 9/11 Truth Investigations like this:

Demolition vs Coincidence: No one who has researched the data and evidence still available has come to the conclusion that the towers fell without the use of explosives. NIST has retracted their claim there was no free fall in WTC7, they have retracted any pancake theories, they have stated that the scenario they outlined which explains collapse by fire and debris is highly unlikely. The only thing which makes NISTs collapse theory possible is if the floors being supported by the beams that gave out were not being heated at the same time as the beams. The expansion possibilities from heat do not allow for the amount of expansion their computer shows and their own tests show that. The only way to increase the expansion bend was to tell the computer not to heat the floor. Thermate is present in dust. Some have said that thermate can't melt steel in the quantities required. A physicist made thermate and tested it (fun video segment in the Toronto Hearings) and after two tries he was able to melt steel in his back yard. He then made adjustments to his improvised thermate box and managed to cut steel horizontally and vertically. He doesn't know anything about explosives... just a scientist doing a test in his backyard.

If a proper investigation can be done to officially confirm there were explosives used, then the whole event can be re-examined based on new evidence. People can be put under oath, actually hard questions can be asked, Bush and Cheney can testify apart from each other and in public, and we can find out if State crimes against democracy took place.

30 million dollars was spent finding out if Clinton got a blowjob. Only 3 million was spent (reluctantly) in finding out whether or not the country should go to war.

eta: nobody who has studied the evidence with an open mind still believes it was coincidence
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Koan you know what the answer will be and has been all along if people are put under oath . ...."It's classified" .

I believe you'll all know the truth once all the partys' are dead . But then again, no one has the truth about Kennedy yet either.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Fuzz: "Koan you know what the answer will be and has been all along if people are put under oath . ...."It's classified" .

I believe you'll all know the truth once all the partys' are dead . But then again, no one has the truth about Kennedy yet either."

Would it disappoint you to learn what we think we know is the truth?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1405051 wrote: I see the issue of 9/11 Truth Investigations like this:

Demolition vs Coincidence: No one who has researched the data and evidence still available has come to the conclusion that the towers fell without the use of explosives. NIST has retracted their claim there was no free fall in WTC7, they have retracted any pancake theories, they have stated that the scenario they outlined which explains collapse by fire and debris is highly unlikely. The only thing which makes NISTs collapse theory possible is if the floors being supported by the beams that gave out were not being heated at the same time as the beams. The expansion possibilities from heat do not allow for the amount of expansion their computer shows and their own tests show that. The only way to increase the expansion bend was to tell the computer not to heat the floor. Thermate is present in dust. Some have said that thermate can't melt steel in the quantities required. A physicist made thermate and tested it (fun video segment in the Toronto Hearings) and after two tries he was able to melt steel in his back yard. He then made adjustments to his improvised thermate box and managed to cut steel horizontally and vertically. He doesn't know anything about explosives... just a scientist doing a test in his backyard.

If a proper investigation can be done to officially confirm there were explosives used, then the whole event can be re-examined based on new evidence. People can be put under oath, actually hard questions can be asked, Bush and Cheney can testify apart from each other and in public, and we can find out if State crimes against democracy took place.

30 million dollars was spent finding out if Clinton got a blowjob. Only 3 million was spent (reluctantly) in finding out whether or not the country should go to war.

eta: nobody who has studied the evidence with an open mind still believes it was coincidence


So after all we have talked about, we are back to the basic "ism" of the truthers.

No one who has researched the data and evidence still available has come to the conclusion that the towers fell without the use of explosives.

Sorry, but that is not so.

It has been explained how the towers fell, and how they could have been brought down without explosives.

It has even been explained how WTC 7 could have been felled without explosives.

Of course, stating so, makes me a lackey for the state in the minds of all the so-called open-minded investigators, but I reckon we all have our cross to bear.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Isn't that what Monica said?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

The explanation for how the towers fell without explosives involves a scenario that requires the support beams being heated while the floors remain cool.

It's not a valid explanation. They had to remove heat from half the equation to even get the computer close to a solution. Their own experiments showed that it wouldn't happen.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1405202 wrote: The explanation for how the towers fell without explosives involves a scenario that requires the support beams being heated while the floors remain cool.

It's not a valid explanation. They had to remove heat from half the equation to even get the computer close to a solution. Their own experiments showed that it wouldn't happen.


Where on earth did you get THAT?

And "coincidence" is another trigger word for the truthers to play around with.

You should read the report, instead of the truther opinion of the report.

And we ARE talking the towers at the moment. Right?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

wtc 7 collapse - YouTube

WTC 7 collapse
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1405333 wrote: wtc 7 collapse - YouTube

WTC 7 collapse


Been there, done that.

Why is it, every time we talk about the towers, someone wants to show a film of bldg 7 going down?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

LarsMac;1405245 wrote: Where on earth did you get THAT?

And "coincidence" is another trigger word for the truthers to play around with.

You should read the report, instead of the truther opinion of the report.

And we ARE talking the towers at the moment. Right?
The problem is this: You can read the report but you have to buy each bit of evidence if you want to look at how they got the conclusion in the report. (If I'm reading "add to cart" properly)

My opinion of the final report is that they make a statement and that statement might be wrong. Just as they stated that free fall didn't happen. Then they were forced to see the evidence that it did and then changed their statements. If that statement was wrong the others may be wrong as well, but they haven't changed them yet. I'm not prepared to buy the evidence so I'm stuck with the presentations made by those who have bought it so they can study it. It was worth them buying it because they had the means to test and analyse it.

The majority of evidence focuses on WTC7 and that's okay because building 7 falling down was part of the same event. It didn't get hit by planes but it came down as a result (if you believe NIST) of the same sequence of events and in a very similar manner. NIST admits that the plane impacts did not cause the towers to fall. They also admit that the falling debris did negligible damage to building 7. Their conclusions that the fires weakened the structure are based on computer model simulations to which they won't release the input data no matter how much you are willing to pay for it. They did practical tests with a reconstructed floor and the fires showed the floors to warp but the practical tests did not show the degree of warping that was required for their computer models. Again, I'm not going to buy all the footage from them because other people who can analyse it better have already done that.

I will find the clip that shows the difference in the practical warping of the floors vs what NIST says the warp percentage was.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Meanwhile, are you under the impression that WTC7 fell for unpredictable reasons? That no one could have expected building 7 to fall in advance of it crumbling to the ground?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1405405 wrote: Meanwhile, are you under the impression that WTC7 fell for unpredictable reasons? That no one could have expected building 7 to fall in advance of it crumbling to the ground?


I would say unpredictable fits.

Though, the FD had written it off a couple of hours before it fell.

There were some key pressure points on WTC 7, which, if lost, meant the entire building was going to have no support internally.

If the central supports lost integrity, we would seem the entire support structure become unstable, and we might see that internal structure collapse, leaving the outer walls to fall shortly after.

Guess what. That seems to be exactly what happened.

The film clip you posted here shows the penthouse falling into the building just before the outer structure collapsed.

I am not saying that is all there is to it. Sure, there are a lot of unknowns here.

Definitely warrants more digging, but alas, it could have happened just like the NIST report said.

All I am saying is that the video evidence is no more conclusive than anything else.

When you look at each building, and examine the evidence, you must consider the building design, as well as any other evidence, and there are no absolutes, here.

Also, stop using "they" so much. There are too many players in this thing, I believe, to keep straight which "they" did what.

S, just for grins, let's go back to the twin towers for a moment, shall we?

What, exactly is the evidence that led these folks to believe that either of these towers could not have fallen without explosives?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I'm glad you realize that WTC7 collapse was predicted because there was no reason to predict it falling. The debris impact had no effect on the integrity of the building and office fires never bring down steel towers. What happens when buildings only lose support part way down?

Here's one example:

koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Here is another result of natural fall overcoming an actual planned demo

koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I'm on night brain Pacific time but here's why I'm posting those last two videos: It's very important to realize that even with planned, controlled demolition it is not that easy to get a building to drop in its footprint yet on September 11, 2001 we have three buildings doing just that. We have three buildings, only two of which were hit by airplanes, and some office fires that have never resulted in steel building collapse not just falling but falling without resistance and falling into their footprints. Expert demolitions don't have that kind of success. Expert demolitions go wrong all the time. To have three "natural" collapses that do not tip over and fall asymmetrically is the big eyebrow raiser. If these three buildings had been taken down by a demolition crew that was willing to put their name to it, they'd never be out of work for the rest of their and their ancestor's lives.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

There is the problem.

You cannot link all three falling buildings that way.

The towers did not fall in the same fashion as WTC 7.

Each tower began the collapse at the the level of the impact.

WTC 7 lost its core support at a very low level, and collapsed in the fashion demonstrated in those videos. Like the bottom dropped out from under it.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

In what universe do any of the WTC collapses resemble those videos? In all cases, the buildings were reduced to dust and all steel components were bits of scrap metal heaped in a rubble pile. You can even see the top section of the south tower falling in one mass, starting to tilt then magically correcting in symmetry and exploding to dust. In none of the three falls do you have a) sections of building that stop falling when they meet the resistance of the structure below or b) sections of building that fall over due to non symmetrical damage.

I'm flabbergasted that you could watch those demolitions and have the gall to tell me that's what the tower did. I can't argue with absurdity. My answer to you is "the duck wore rubber boots." Any other answer would be a waste of everyone's time.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by YZGI »

koan;1405471 wrote: I'm on night brain Pacific time but here's why I'm posting those last two videos: It's very important to realize that even with planned, controlled demolition it is not that easy to get a building to drop in its footprint yet on September 11, 2001 we have three buildings doing just that. We have three buildings, only two of which were hit by airplanes, and some office fires that have never resulted in steel building collapse not just falling but falling without resistance and falling into their footprints. Expert demolitions don't have that kind of success. Expert demolitions go wrong all the time. To have three "natural" collapses that do not tip over and fall asymmetrically is the big eyebrow raiser. If these three buildings had been taken down by a demolition crew that was willing to put their name to it, they'd never be out of work for the rest of their and their ancestor's lives.


I have to admit, that is a tad bit miraculous.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

THOSE two videos are examples of demos where the planning did not go right. OK, sorry, I did not watch them first.

However, I don' really get where that applies to WTC. ???

Going back to the towers. So you expected that the top section of the tower would just continue to tip over and fall sideways. Right.

What you, and all the 911 truthers miss is that for this to happen, the remaining structure would have to be much stronger. Remember the point I made about the way the build was designed. There was not core structure to the building in the sense we are used to. If a plane hit the Empire state building, and the top section were to begin to topple like that, yes, it very likely would have continued to fall over. But that is because the core structure of the building would have remained upright, and held the base of the falling piece, acting as a fulcrum point.

In the towers the support was not the same. The added weight at the base of the falling structure collapse the sections under it, and just added weight to the next lower section, so as each level collapsed under the weight the weight compounded, and we see the "pancaking" affect.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by YZGI »

LarsMac;1405526 wrote: THOSE two videos are examples of demos where the planning did not go right. OK, sorry, I did not watch them first.

However, I don' really get where that applies to WTC. ???

Going back to the towers. So you expected that the top section of the tower would just continue to tip over and fall sideways. Right.

What you, and all the 911 truthers miss is that for this to happen, the remaining structure would have to be much stronger. Remember the point I made about the way the build was designed. There was not core structure to the building in the sense we are used to. If a plane hit the Empire state building, and the top section were to begin to topple like that, yes, it very likely would have continued to fall over. But that is because the core structure of the building would have remained upright, and held the base of the falling piece, acting as a fulcrum point.

In the towers the support was not the same. The added weight at the base of the falling structure collapse the sections under it, and just added weight to the next lower section, so as each level collapsed under the weight the weight compounded, and we see the "pancaking" affect.


But, isn't it amazing that all three went down virtually the same with different impact points, different damage etc. etc..
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

There was no pancake. Pancake collapses are also documented. They have visible layers of stacked floors at the bottom when the dust settles. The towers were not designed to collapse more easily. You have three buildings with asymmetrical damage, asymmetrical fires that were burning out in less than half an hour as they spread, yet all three collapsed symmetrically. The demos gone wrong show exactly why this doesn't happen unless it's a demo. Even a demo going that well is a long shot.
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »



(10) Another reason that we know the fires were not as serious as claimed, is that there are photos of people in the impacted region after the planes hit the building (and before it collapsed). The above photos show at least two survivors of the impact and the initial jet-fuel fire.

The World Trade Center Fires.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

YZGI;1405528 wrote: But, isn't it amazing that all three went down virtually the same with different impact points, different damage etc. etc..


Umm. no.

First tower was hit around floor 95.

Second tower hit around floor 80.

Second tower fell first. Predictable because there were more floors, hence more weight above the damaged area.

The weight distribution was evenly disbursed across all vertical supports on each floor. Once vertical supports began to collapse, and more weight must be supported by fewer supports, and the upper section began to fall, stress points became redistributed, and vertical supports began to fail across the entire floor. then we see the entire damage section fall onto the floor below, initiating an impact downward onto the lower floors.

Each floor below collapses at impact and the entire mass falls downward crushing consecutive floors below. It was not until the upper section hits the ground that it too loses any structural integrity and collapses onto the debris pile at ground level.

The first tower lasts a little longer, and there is little tilt visible when the vertical supports begin to collapse. The sequence is very much like the second tower. The weight of the structure above crashing into floors below carrying the weight which is quickly growing with each consecutive floor adding to it.

If this was demo as is claimed, we would have seen the entire tower collapsing nearly simultaneously, and all floors would have been falling together. The dust would likely have blocked out what was happening at the lower levels. (You can see this in the video footage of any of the demo films.)



It is debris from the first tower that damages WTC 7, and it would seem there was actually far more damage to the central support structure than was detected at first.



When WTC 7 does collapse, its fall is very like a demo'd building, where demolition destroys the central supports and ground level as well as most floors to bring it down.

From the film Koan posted early on, you can see that the central structure collapsed, evidenced by the loss of the penthouse as it falls into the building interior, before the outer walls collapse into the building footprint.



IF you look at the original building plans for bldg 7, you will see a fairly unique core structure and the weakness in the building design should be quite evident.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

The fire could burn down WTC and Pentagon but couldn’t burn a hair of a monitor and book?



Pentagon book



Pentagon monitor



The pentagon was not hit by a airliner. See for yourself - YouTube

The pentagon was not hit by a airliner. See for yourself
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

That argument is lame in so many ways.

But I will simplify my argument.

I know, personally, seven people who were witnesses to the plane that hit the Pentagon.

four family member saw it flying across the river shortly before the collision, one friend was at the Pentagon in the South parking lot, and two co-workers were in a car on Washington Blvd, and watched the plane fly into the building.

That is all I have to say about the Pentagon incident.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »



All of these people could be witness of Bin Laden's death. None stands out to say what they have seen in situation room. Because they think they are celibrities and none want to be a cheap witness you referred. This government lied so much that it has lost creditability. It maintains because it stole power from people and keep a big troop of accessaries to defend for their crimes.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1407063 wrote:

All of these people could be witness of Bin Laden's death. None stands out to say what they have seen in situation room. Because they think they are celibrities and none want to be a cheap witness you referred. This government lied so much that it has lost creditability. It maintains because it stole power from people and keep a big troop of accessaries to defend for their crimes.


If you say so, but it does not change the facts or the events of 9/11

and none want to be a cheap witness you referred.
I have to ask. What you mean with this statement?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

LarsMac;1406981 wrote:

four family member saw it flying across the river shortly before the collision, one friend was at the Pentagon in the South parking lot, and two co-workers were in a car on Washington Blvd, and watched the plane fly into the building.

.


Isn't that too less compare to their enormous troop of informants? 911 is a big plot. Many people involved in. Would that be a problem to organize a team of "witness"?



The Informants

Illustrations: Jeffrey Smith

The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?

—By Trevor Aaronson

September/October 2011 Issue

The Informants | Mother Jones


A hidden world, growing beyond control

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com


9/11 Pentagon Attack- Flight 77 (Full Documentary) - YouTube

9/11 Pentagon Attack- Flight 77 (Full Documentary)

Contradiction of witness
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1408721 wrote: Isn't that too less compare to their enormous troop of informants? 911 is a big plot. Many people involved in. Would that be a problem to organize a team of "witness"?



9/11 Pentagon Attack- Flight 77 (Full Documentary) - YouTube

9/11 Pentagon Attack- Flight 77 (Full Documentary)

Contradiction of witness


So you are saying that my wife and her sisters are all part of the cover up?

So, then, I guess I am just one of the conspirators too. Is that what you are suggesting?

Damn! I KNEW I shouldn't have gone and let them into my head. They said it was just to clear the cobwebs.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by YZGI »

Quoted from Katsung47:



A hidden world, growing beyond control

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com





Shhhhhh.
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

LarsMac;1408728 wrote: So you are saying that my wife and her sisters are all part of the cover up?

So, then, I guess I am just one of the conspirators too. Is that what you are suggesting?

Damn! I KNEW I shouldn't have gone and let them into my head. They said it was just to clear the cobwebs.


Quite possible because I am sure you are a professional "Swift boat team" member worked to influence the Internet web site.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1408768 wrote: Quite possible because I am sure you are a professional "Swift boat team" member worked to influence the Internet web site.


Ah, well I haven't been on any swift boats. Most of my boats have been pretty damned slow.

And I really don't give two hoots about the internet site, either. I just like to argue.

I, personally, think that it is you that is the conspirator, set out to confuse the populace and foment distrust among the common folk.

I also don't believe that the people who are trying to run the gummint are really capable of this massive conspiracy that the truthers are so certain has been carried out.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

The original photo shows that the damage was a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Could the whole Boeing squeeze into it?



THE EVIDENCE:

One hole, 2 ½ yards in diameter

Whatever hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 made a hole several meters wide in the front wall between the first and second floors. It emerged three blocks later, leaving behind a perfectly round hole of about 2 ½ yards in diameter.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/ ... rou_en.htm
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1409830 wrote: The original photo shows that the damage was a hole 2 � yards in diameter. Could the whole Boeing squeeze into it?



THE EVIDENCE:

One hole, 2 � yards in diameter

Whatever hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 made a hole several meters wide in the front wall between the first and second floors. It emerged three blocks later, leaving behind a perfectly round hole of about 2 � yards in diameter.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/ ... rou_en.htm


That hole in the back wall is, amazingly, about the diameter of the main fuselage framework, which is what would have managed to remain relatively intact in passing through the lower floor, while tail section, and wings and such would have broken off further back as the plane traversed the building.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

Pentagon No Sign of a plane!!

Pentagon No Sign of a plane!! - YouTube
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1410767 wrote: Pentagon No Sign of a plane!!

Pentagon No Sign of a plane!! - YouTube


Horse hockey.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

LarsMac;1409852 wrote: That hole in the back wall is, amazingly, about the diameter of the main fuselage framework, which is what would have managed to remain relatively intact in passing through the lower floor, while tail section, and wings and such would have broken off further back as the plane traversed the building.


Man qualified to answer this question.

Gen. Says Flt. 77 Did Not Hit Pentagon

Gen. Says Flt. 77 Did Not Hit Pentagon - Video Dailymotion
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12306
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

katsung47;1411748 wrote: Man qualified to answer this question.

Gen. Says Flt. 77 Did Not Hit Pentagon

Gen. Says Flt. 77 Did Not Hit Pentagon - Video Dailymotion


THAT's your expert?

:-2

:-3

:thinking:

:guitarist

:lips:

:wah:...... :wah:

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl



:-3

Sorry.

No really. You do have some convincing arguments out there, somewhere, don't you?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

Here's something the government didn't want you to see - YouTube

Here's something the government didn't want you to see
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

Most Censored 9-11 WTC Video on Youtube

https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com ... n-youtube/

911 (FAKE) Eyewitnesses VIDEOS « 911justicehalifax
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!

9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube

At 21:53 min. - the Pentagon's missing $2.3 trillion is announced by Donald Rumsfeld, and it's interesting, that the destruction of that area of Pentagon and Building 7 were connected to these missing trillions of dollars.
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »

Two of the planes of 9/11 exceeded their software limits; were controlled from the ground

BY JIM Heikkila

911 tale is a lie from beginning to end

Return to “Conspiracy Theories”