Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

Howard...........

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
— When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

So those are imaginary flames, Huh?

Can you show a link saying that the image you posted is a picture of the North Tower on fire at 16min or longer? How do we not know you posted one of the South or that it is of the North Tower only a few minutes later? You cant just post a picture of a building on fire and say JJ is wrong.

Using a cubicle based on the offices of insurance firm Marsh & McLennan - a north tower tenant that lost 295 employees - federal fire experts conclude it was more likely the heat of burning office materials brought down the tower, rather than jet-fuel-fed flames.

This test, conducted by National Institute of Standards and Technology last month, showed the fuel from the plane that crashed into the tower burned out quickly -

Now you turn your rebuttal around once again.You keep telling everyone that the PLANE fuel was burning so hot, that it was the cause of the building collapse.Now you post something that totally contradicts what you preach.Why do you keep doing that?

Originally posted by SMR
Can you show a link saying that the image you posted is a picture of the North Tower on fire at 16min or longer? How do we not know you posted one of the South or that it is of the North Tower only a few minutes later? You cant just post a picture of a building on fire and say JJ is wrong.

Here is the whole collection that I got that picture from. Based on the other pictures, it is clear that that is a shot of the north tower burning. Unfortunately, the only clue to the timeline is the sequencing of the pictures. However, since the south tower is also visible as being on fire, that indicates that those pictures were taken at least 16 minutes after the north tower was hit.

In any case, it is clear that the fires were large and well developed in both buildings.

Originally posted by SMR

Using a cubicle based on the offices of insurance firm Marsh & McLennan - a north tower tenant that lost 295 employees - federal fire experts conclude it was more likely the heat of burning office materials brought down the tower, rather than jet-fuel-fed flames.

This test, conducted by National Institute of Standards and Technology last month, showed the fuel from the plane that crashed into the tower burned out quickly -

Now you turn your rebuttal around once again.You keep telling everyone that the PLANE fuel was burning so hot, that it was the cause of the building collapse.Now you post something that totally contradicts what you preach.Why do you keep doing that?

What are you talking about?

Do you remember JJ’s post?

— The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

All I did was post information that shows quite conclusively that his claim is not correct. BESIDES for the jet fuel, the buildings were filled with a large quantity of flammable material that contributed to the total BTU value of the fires.

How is this contradicting anything?

Sheesh


I suppose that the next claim will be that here were no fires at all when the buildings collapsed.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

The point I was making was that you are always telling us the the fire and fuel brought them down.Then to prove JJ wrong, you posted something that goes against what you have always said.
So in reality, you are also wrong then by the quote you posted about the fuel not being the culprit.

You know I like giving you a hard time
I will go on record though and say you are my favorite debunker here