Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

page: 11
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Beancounter72
 


Beancounter, I'd fact-check yourself before accusing others of writing disinfo.

Let's see, I'll just focus on the parts of your post involving the airplanes---



The hijacked airplanes were not ALLOWED to wander about for an hour and a half. Depends on how you interpret 'allowed'.


Right.

Someone, somewhere on this Board used that term, "wander". Have you EVER looked at the actual timeline? Ever looked at the ground tracks of all four airplanes? It's available, to everyone with access to the Web.

So, here are the facts:

en.wikipedia.org...
AAL 11. Hijacked at 0814 EDT (all times EDT). Impact at 0846. That is 32 minutes, by my math. Or, 'about' a half-hour.

AA 175 is next. The actual time is not certain, between 0842 and 0846. Impact at 0903. 21 minutes, tops.

AA 77 --- 0856 when the transponder turned off, it likely began to alter course shortly after. Impact at 0937. 41 minutes.

UA 93. 0928, impact 1003 (per its onboard clock, per FDR, but actual radar contact lost by FAA's clocks was 1006. 38 minutes.

These are the facts. WHO came up with the "wandering for an hour and a half" nonsense??? Not you, of course....but it SOUNDS good to other "truthers", and just gets exaggerated. So, it spreads as an 'urban legend' (which, BTW, describes a lot of the "truther" memes).



The fact is that jets from the nearest based were NOT scrambled while jets from further away were


Read the timeline.



...and some of them were sent in the wrong direction.


Yes, due to the confusion in communications, betrween various agencies. NORAD was geared up for external threats.

Now, here it is you, it seems, with the hyperbole, and not a lick of truth:


...then those components ie. the titanium engine parts, the steel wings, must still be there, right?


"steel wings"? Surely, you didn't really mean that? I mean, I hope you take some time to learn how the wings are designed, constructed and what they're made of. (Hint: If you walk out under an airplnae wing, and stick a magnet to it, it WILL NOT stick...)

Same with your miosconception regarding how the engines are constructed, and what titanium is. Ever seen photos of a disaassemled jet engine? It is made up of a dozen or so (depends on engine) compressor blades, attached to a hub, and turbines. Sometimes the components are cast, at the factory, as one piece, other times the individual blades are each separate, and attached to the center hub. There is a bit of 'play' built in to the design, so that they adjust to differing airflows.

(When you walk around a jet, and the wind is blowing, the engines will 'windmill' --- and you can hear the blades tinkling as the engine rotates).

ALL of those separate pieces BROKE APART in the tremendous force of impact.

Oh, and titanium? Popular misconception is that it's strong...it isn't. It is strong for its weight, and has a very high melting point. It is better (and slightly stronger) than aluminum alloys, but steel is much, much stronger (and heavier, which is why airplanes aren't built with it). Titanium is better than aluminum, except is is WAY too expensive.



If there's any disinfo here it's from you.


Pot? Kettle.


What cell of the Mossad do you belong to?


That's just rude, and uncalled for (and against T&C).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I just wrote all that work in the wrong thread
....sorry everyone, but I'm letting it stay. Staff can decide.

Here, more info. A generic high-bypass turbofan diagram:



(The RR RB-211 engine is a 'three-spool' engine...I'll look for one)


This animation is cool, if it works:

en.wikipedia.org...:Turbofan3_Labelled.gif


An RB-211 (typical) in cutaway:




Isn't learning fun!?



[edit on 5 March 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Isn't learning fun!?


If you present the right things to learn.

Lets look at some facts.

1. Wings will normally shear off when hitting an obsticle.

2. Engines will normally survive a crash due to thier construction.

3. The tail will normally survive, thats why they put the FDR, CVR, and emergency beacon in the tail.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Wings will shear off on impact always? Really? Even if they hit a wall? They'll just pop off and stay intact? Really??


Engines do survive, depending on severity of crash. A crash landing or having one fall off in flight will leave it intact nicely. Having an impact with a building will do a lot more damage to the engines. They are not solid one piece parts of heavy duty steel. They are multiple parts all connected together. They were all recovered at the WTCs and the Pentagon and Shanksville. Banged up and torn apart in some cases, but recovered.

The tail will usually survive, in a crash landing, or a low angle impact with the ground. Impacting in a nosedive into the ground will obliterate everything including the tail. Same is true upon impacting a building at very high speed.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Wings will shear off on impact always? Really? Even if they hit a wall? They'll just pop off and stay intact? Really??


Yes, as many photos show wings will shear off when hitting an obsticale.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


They are multiple parts all connected together. They were all recovered at the WTCs and the Pentagon and Shanksville. Banged up and torn apart in some cases, but recovered.


Plese show proper evidence of these parts and that they belong to the planes.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Ok two problems there Remisne:

First picture, the MD-82 aircraft struck an approach light tier. Can you see the bridgelike structure? Can you see the lattice post the aircraft struck? Of course it will snap off when hitting a post-like object. What if that had been a solid wall instead, and rather than impacting at landing speed, 450mph?
read about the full incident here:
www.airdisaster.com...

Second picture: A Challenger CL-600 crashes on take-off from Teterboro Airport. It slid off the runway after not being able to pull up possbly due to icing. It slid off the runway, crossed an expressway, and then impacted the warehouse. Now the problem? It was not traveling at 450mph. It was below 200mph on impact, and even lower thanks to skidding across a highway and then a short distance later, hitting the building. It going relativly slow, slow enough to remain intact on impact. BIG difference in comparison to a high speed impact eh? Physics physics physics!



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by smurfy
He is actually saying that the fireman's manual states that thermite is one accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse! that surely must be one the most important parts of his speech. Thermite is in that manual, yet is one of the most poo-hooed CT ideas. This is a whole new light on it for me.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]


Can you or anyone please show me that the fireman's manual states that thermite should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse ? Thanks.


Yup thats the standard and its been posted in this forum directly out of the NIST code book many times, search is your friend.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ok two problems there Remisne:


But the point is the wings were sheared off.

I can show more photos and more NTSB reports that state wings shear off when hitting an obsticle.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


You showed two examples of low speed impacts, one of which wasnt a wall, but a support post holding up a landing light bar. I wonder if it would have stayed intact had it been a solid wall at 450mph?

The second was a low speed impact after sliding off the end of the runway and crossing a highway. In both of those instances, the aircraft was traveling slow and impacting two different objects, one of which isnt a wall, and therefore has no relevance to what happened at the WTC or Pentagon. Simply put, the wings would not shear off intact when impacting a large solid object.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by smurfy
He is actually saying that the fireman's manual states that thermite is one accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse! that surely must be one the most important parts of his speech. Thermite is in that manual, yet is one of the most poo-hooed CT ideas. This is a whole new light on it for me.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]


Can you or anyone please show me that the fireman's manual states that thermite should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse ? Thanks.


Yup thats the standard and its been posted in this forum directly out of the NIST code book many times, search is your friend.


Not so, Mr Lawyer said in his presentation that 19.2.4, in the fire manual he was referring to, suggested that consideration should be given to the use of exotic accelerants if " molten steel or concrete " was found.

As evidence for molten steel or molten concrete has not been substantiated at the WTC site there is no reason why anybody should have searched for these accelerants.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Simply put, the wings would not shear off intact when impacting a large solid object.


How many photos and reports must i post for you to accept the fact that wings will shear off when hitting a solid object?



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Not so, Mr Lawyer said in his presentation that 19.2.4, in the fire manual he was referring to, suggested that consideration should be given to the use of exotic accelerants if " molten steel or concrete " was found.

As evidence for molten steel or molten concrete has not been substantiated at the WTC site there is no reason why anybody should have searched for these accelerants.


Substantiated by whom? FEMA reported it. First responders reported it. theres pictures of it on the internet.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





But the point is the wings were sheared off.

I can show more photos and more NTSB reports that state wings shear off when hitting an obsticle.



Looks like wings are still partially intact

aviation-safety.net...

aviation-safety.net...

Here is accident report

aviation-safety.net...

Teterboro airport is notorious for accidents - average about one a week

Live only few miles from it - took a aircraft Fire fighting class there



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Looks like wings are still partially intact


But the ponint remains that wings will shear off when hittting a obsticle.



[edit on 7-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Thanks to the OP for posting the video clip.

Ever since 9/11 a small, though growing, segment of America's population has shown itself willing to investigate a crime that the Bush and Obama administrations have preferred to either cover up or ignore. Personally, I'm wondering when we are going to reach the tipping point where the facade erected by the Bush administration, now in tatters, comes crumbling down.

I think it is going to be a shocking moment, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of those "What do we do now?" moments.

I used to hope for a small breakthrough, one small criminal conviction that would lead to an insider becoming state's evidence, to start the ball rolling, but now, as far as the Bush administration's interpretation of events goes, I think we will see something like what happened in 1989, a bankrupt empire propped up by nothing more than inertia, that topples with one well directed puff of wind.

When the unofficial official story is laughed at by everyone, then what'll we do? Who's going to bell the cat? Who's going to hand the emperor his orange jump suit?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Not so, Mr Lawyer said in his presentation that 19.2.4, in the fire manual he was referring to, suggested that consideration should be given to the use of exotic accelerants if " molten steel or concrete " was found.

As evidence for molten steel or molten concrete has not been substantiated at the WTC site there is no reason why anybody should have searched for these accelerants.


Substantiated by whom? FEMA reported it. First responders reported it. theres pictures of it on the internet.


a) Can you please direct me to where FEMA reported "molten steel " as opposed to "molten material " ? FEMA did report this in relation to the towers "temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,100 degrees c ( 1700-2000 degrees f ) in some areas and 400-800 degrees c ( 800-1500 degrees f ) in others. " As steel will not melt until 2500 f plus they clearly would not have expected to see any molten steel.

b) How would first responders be in a position to know what any molten material was ?

c) If you think pictures circulating on the internet are good evidence have a look at these used by Steven Jones :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:79

This thread has actually thrown up an interesting area truthers have ignored. As per the op, 19.2.4 of the fire manual suggests that you test for " exotic accelerants " if you find "molten steel or molten concrete ." Makes perfect sense because those things would indicate exceptionally high temperatures . Steel melts at approx 2500 degrees f and concrete at approx 3000 degrees f. However, thermite burns at approximately 4,500 degrees f so it would have melted both. Obvious question therefore is where is the evidnce of molten concrete to go alongside the alleged melted steel ?
"



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Obvious question therefore is where is the evidnce of molten concrete to go alongside the alleged melted steel ?


Has anyone alleged that thermite was applied to the concrete? My understanding is that it would have been used to take out load bearing steel beams.

Having said that, there may be evidence of it as bits of vitrified concrete. I think that's where it would be if it exists.

I'm not saying that larger lumps of vitrified concrete couldn't be found. They may well exist. Firemen said they saw molten steel flowing like lava. Maybe some of it was actually concrete lava. I haven't heard tell of lumps of formerly molten glass being seen in the wreckage, but maybe they were.

It just strikes me that thermite would likely have been applied to take care of the steel and would only have melted concrete in a haphazard way, if at all.

Here's some more information about concrete:

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...


Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides,
hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive,
interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as
gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when
heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the
hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly
lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory;
they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of
concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending
on their mineral composition.

So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose
rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it
cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.


The quote seems to imply that "melted" concrete might not look much different from other nondescript charred materials. On that basis, what there was of it, if there was any, might not have been recognized.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


If thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings I don't see how contact with concrete could have been avoided and there is no reason for anyone to try and avoid it. Even if it was just applied to steel structures, what happened when it burned through ? I have seen thermite burn through the engine block of a car and burn the ground underneath.

I found it very interesting that the fire manual links molten steel and molten concrete as suspicious pointers but I have not heard a single truther, ( Steven Jones et al ), mention molten concrete which should have been there if thermite was around burning at 4,500 degrees f.

So far as your fireman saying they saw molten steel flowing like lava; how would they know ? was it analysed ? Much more likely aluminium. NIST doesn't think there was any molten steel there.

But, if thermite and molten steel was there, where is the evidence of molten concrete and why hasn't Steven Jones picked up on it ?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
HERE
are pictures of:
"9-11: DISPLAY OF POLICE GUNS FOUND WITH MELTED CONCRETE IN THE RUINS OF THE WTC"



THESE GUNS ARE ON DISPLAY AT THE NEW YORK POLICE MUSEUM. CONCRETE MELTS AT 3000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, PROVING THAT TEMPERATURES INSIDE THE COLLAPSED WORLD TRADE CENTER HAD TO BE AT LEAST THAT HIGH.





posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dogdish
HERE
are pictures of:
"9-11: DISPLAY OF POLICE GUNS FOUND WITH MELTED CONCRETE IN THE RUINS OF THE WTC"



THESE GUNS ARE ON DISPLAY AT THE NEW YORK POLICE MUSEUM. CONCRETE MELTS AT 3000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, PROVING THAT TEMPERATURES INSIDE THE COLLAPSED WORLD TRADE CENTER HAD TO BE AT LEAST THAT HIGH.




Would you let us know which WTC building they were found in please ?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Like the sign says in the picture: "Ground Zero".

You can find them today at The New York City Police Museum:
LINK





new topics
top topics
 
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join