Originally posted by selfless
Suffocation from the smoke most likely, that's what usually happens when there is smoke in a building but doesn't mean there are extreme fires in
the building to have smoke.
Of course you don't need extreme fires to cause smoke. I'm sure that it took more than "tiny little fires" to cause this much black smoke to be
pouring out of WTC1 15 minutes after the attack:
Now to show you what i mean here is a comparison of the WTC fire and the Madrid fire.
Don't take this personal, but for 5 years CTers have failed to grasp how irrelevant and borderline moronic it is to compare the Madrid fire to WTC1
and WTC2.
The Madrid building was not hit with a plane; WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by 300,000 pound planes traveling at 500 mph, filled with thousands of gallons of
jet fuel. Do you have any idea how much force and energy are contained in a 300,000 pound mass traveling at 500 mph?
The incredible force from the impact of the planes, along with the explosing jet fuel was the equivalent of the WTCs being hit with a huge missile.
The planes and the subsequent explosion caused not only fires, but massive damage to the WTC's steel beams. There is nothing comparable to the
Madrid fire.
Here is the tiny little fire from the WTC.
The photo that shows the close-up of the hole in the north face of WTC1, along with the woman standing in the hole, might be either the most
ill-informed or most intellectually dishonest argument ever put forth by the CT movement. It's such a bogus argument that I'm starting to believe
it was first put out there by paid disinfo agents.
Showing a zoomed in photo with a "tiny" fire in the photo does *not* prove there were no large fires in WTC1. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt that you're just ill-informed and not being intentionally intellectually dishonest about this.
Look at these photos of the opposite side of WTC1, where the fires were consuming the better part of the entire width of the structure, and at least 5
or 6 floors:
Even the photo of the east face of WTC1 shows there was a large fire in the SE corner of the building.
Here's another photo of the north side of WTC1 zoomed out to show the *actual* fires visible from the north.
And so the tiny fire took down the WTC in 1 hour?
You no longer can use being misinformed as an excuse. If you continue to characterize the fires at WTC1 as "tiny little fires" then it's obvious
that you really don't care about the truth, and only want to sensationalize and perpetuate a distorted reality that exists only in the CT
sub-culture.
And so the Madrid fire lasted for 24 hours and didn't take the building down.
Correct. The Madrid fire didn't take the building down because the buidling was not hit by a 300,000 pound airplane traveling at 500 mph before the
fire began.
