Undetonated Explosive Material from 9/11 Rubble

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by truthquest

 

I find it funny

That people (OS) say simple fires brought down these buildings .

But when it comes to Demolition , they say you need 100 tonnes to bring them down because the buildings are strong.

Oh, were they "simple fires"? Thats different. Here I thought they were real fires, you know, one of the most destructuve forms of energy. But I guess when you use adjectives like "simple" and "office" then fire is not as destructive.

Well, I guess then getting hit by a 100 ton bullet going 730fps is just a "bump".

reply to post by hooper


Well I guess some of us, including Sean, are not under the incorrect impression that fire is fire regardless of the fuel and oxygen content, time the fire was burning, etc.

The reason OFFICE is often used to precede fire in this context is because that's what they were, not the fuel laden supper hot fires you want to believe.

Calling them office fires does not make them cooler fires, it makes them what they were, carbon fueled fires. And we know from history, and science, what a carbon fueled fire is capable of. We also know very well from history and science how kerosene based fuel reacts when ignited.

You all act like 9-11 was such a unique event that no known physics can be used to study what happened. Instead of constantly picking on our correct used of terms (as apposed to the generic street definitions), do some research on real physics not related to 9-11 'debunkers', or 'truther', sites and learn how to implement it.

reply to post by ANOK

Well I guess some of us, including Sean, are not under the incorrect impression that fire is fire regardless of the fuel and oxygen content, time the fire was burning, etc.

Ok, I don't even understand this sentence. I think what you might be trying to say is not all fire is created equal. Maybe.

The reason OFFICE is often used to precede fire in this context is because that's what they were, not the fuel laden supper hot fires you want to believe.

Well, there was fuel - otherwise there would not have been a fire. When does the level of fuel become "laden"?

Calling them office fires does not make them cooler fires, it makes them what they were, carbon fueled fires. And we know from history, and science, what a carbon fueled fire is capable of. We also know very well from history and science how kerosene based fuel reacts when ignited.

And be honest, you use the term "office" in the hope that people will be decieved into thinking about a fire in an "office", that is a trash can or stovetop fire in the office kitchen. Not what we had on 9/11, which is acres of offices fully involved including the contents of an entire 100 ton commercial jetliner. Just think about it, one acre of carpeting. Thats 43,000+ square feet of carpeting. About 132 cubic yards of fuel. And that's just the carpeting.

You all act like 9-11 was such a unique event that no known physics can be used to study what happened. Instead of constantly picking on our correct used of terms (as apposed to the generic street definitions), do some research on real physics not related to 9-11 'debunkers', or 'truther', sites and learn how to implement it.

Do you really think that no one but you knows anything about physics?

Originally posted by foxhoundone
reply to post by Elieser

 

Just to add to your theory Elieser, It was well known that during the cold war in Germany many if not all the major bridges/river crossings were designed with prefabricated locations for placing demolition charges. In case the the russian red army decided to invade the west..

Hmmm fox, this is getting seriously close to my 'what if' theory posted in other threads about the towers being built 'pre-wired', or at least pre-prepared, for demolition !

[edit on 062828p://02America/Chicago01 by ProRipp]

reply to post by dereks


NIST admitted WTC7 did fall at free-fall speed for a short period of time.

So that just put holes in your whole story..

Jeeze i bet the perps of the WTC collapse never thought theyd be paying off disinfo agents for the next ten years did they?
This debate rages on because the OS hacks have dick to go on so they are pulling out every type of misdirection and misinformation technique in their bag.
Anyone who has ever seen a building being demolished by explosives...can easily see that the towers and building 7 were brought down using them.
The anti truth movement is grasping at strawmen to keep its arguments rolling.
When the American people finally awaken from this nightmare there will be hell to pay for the lies and misdirection with which the industrial elite have perpetrated to cover their tracks......
Clinging to such idiotic notions as the towers could be brought down by fire, and the plane strikes alone, in the face of evidence to the contrary,just gives us a good idea who is the paid disinfo agents and who is honestly in search of 9/11 truth......
It would be fairly easy to get enough explosives into the building if you owned the security firm which secured the towers....now who could that be?
Suprise its a relative of George Bush!