Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

Originally posted by thedman
Reason plane struck that section of Pentagon - that was that was direction plane approached from , hijacker had overshoot first approach and had put aircraft into turn to line up again

Thedman, you're so full of it, your eyes are brown.

Based on news reports from air traffic controllers, the Washington Post, New York Times and Newsday, let's take a look at your Flight 77 "hijacker" Hani Hanjour:

NATCA:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

911review.org...

Washington Post:

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Newsday:

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

www.newsday.com...

New York Times:

Flight Academy staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

query.nytimes.com...

Can U handle the truth.....

There is more than enough evidence, including circumstancial to subpoena many 'folks' responsible for the 9/11 massacre. The video above is quite informative.

Zionistas appear to have 'run amok' with their influence in virtually all postions of authority and intelligence within the US govt. These 'folks' give the innocent jews a bad name. It is in everyone's interest to realize that those whom do not wish to see the brother in the other is an enemy of mankind itself. This should be obvious. These criminals must be prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law if America as that of the world is to move forward with any sense of 'Justice'.

'Come together people'.
and 'Do the Right Thing'.
Why?
Because it is the Right thing to Do.

I'm sure U understand.
no?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by AndrewJay

 

I pray to god that one day the real people behind this attack will be brought to justice. Steel doesnt burn until 3000 degrees. Jet fuel only burns at 1800.

Steel heated to 1800 F has only 10 % or original strenght, also at that temp steel is plastic and will deform
easily under load......

Jet fuel does not burn at 1800 degrees. Jet fuel burns at 550 degrees F. How did you get to 1800???

Jet A-1 Jet A
Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: < −47 °C (−52.6 °F) < −40 °C (−40 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.775 kg/L - 0.840 kg/L
Specific energy >42.80 MJ/kg graph taken from wikipedia


Do you see Open Air burning temperature? That is the condition where there is nothing to encumber the free burn of jet fuel. All the oxygen and space the fuel needs for a free burn. To have the fire in an enclosed area would only serve to smother the fire with smoke or deprive the fire of oxygen. In either case there would not be free burning and thus the temperature would be even lower.

Show me a reliable source that asserts that jet fuel burns three times hotter than it actually burns please. Thedman, you do not know what you are talking about, period.

Last time I checked, you need some kind of blast furnace to melt steel.

Did Silverman install blast furnaces in all three buildings?

Iron and Steel have basically the same melting temperature. I guess the argument is the steel didn't melt but it buckled. How do you explain buckled steel on the lower floors then? I think someone might have touched on it earlier. I can see the top floors buckling but the bottom floors? Those buildings should have fell a few floors then tilted over about halfway down. But for three buildings to pancake down in the exact same way is astronomically impossible. I actually think it's impossible period. Basically, at least half of the towers should have remained standing while the other half pancaked then titled over sideways. Imagine the top of a building DROPPING, then SETTLING, then FALLING over. That's how it should have happened under those circumstances. However, strategically placed demolitions every 10 floors would do the trick. 4 pounds of C4 every 10 floors will do the trick guys.

Oh yeah, any number of people in fireman's suits could have set these demolitions without anyone noticing. How many firefighters were going in and out of those buildings? All one would need is 4 guys or gals in stolen fireman's suits to walk up those stairs and place those charges. Take about an hour to do with using RF detonators. Just like in the movies. A pound of C4 with contraptions taped to them. And that's how you get the free fall effect. If they all go at the same time then you will get the free fall effect.

The lower floors should have withstood the fall because their steel was not buckling by heat. They were cool as a cucumber under the other side of the pillow. No way should those buildings fall like they did under those circumstances. No way it should happen.

reply to Everyone

You know what's encouraging about these 9/11 threads? I constantly see new people who've done the research and have decided to speak out on the side of truth and justice, whereas the professional government debunkers are always represented by the same old, same old, usual suspects who spend all their free time on the 9/11 forum, day in and day out, month after month, ad nauseum.

why are you people fooling for the same old argumentative self proclaimed debunkers,like thedman/alfie and the other's,there all just argumentive people,i'm betting they also believe the towers was one big government cover up and know what we all speak is the truth,but because they are argumentative people by their very nature,they will be getting a kick out of rattling you people.

as i've said before these kind of people would say black is blue just for argument's sake.

it's not hard to debunk things infact try it your self folks,you can debunk the truth very easy,as long as a few facts are hidden,no matter how much truth is presented,you could debunk it.

dont be taken in by these debunkers,there not worth your effort or time.
they are argumentative people,who do it for argument's sake.

I understand what your trying to get at....but there was not enough heat in not only one but in all three buildings that could have even possibly caused a global collapse...as many people have tried to explain to you.
The fires were almost out...and the towers themselves were designed in such a way that they encougage the fires to smother themselves....

here is what happened in the same building in 1975...65% of the 11th floor damaged by FIRE...heat was intense enough to shatter windows. 90% of the mass of the structure above.

Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Towers's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.
The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........
Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.

fires not so hot in 9/11

Please go read the info...and do become informed.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the trusses needed to be replaced.

Please do no go on about an Aluminiun tube striking the STEEL exo frame of the towers being the cause...as that was actually the direct design intent of that STEEL skeleton in case of plane impact.

the planes were torn to shreds before they could have even seriously damaged the central core....and also the jet fuels energy was mostly expelled at time of impact on the outside of the buildings....not only that...it took only 56mins for this supposed fire to cause complete simultaneous failure....give the world a break and some credit.

as for explosions if thedman goes on about gas lines exploding again i will have to show him they dont explode...they will gush out flame where there is a break in the line....gas lines are under low pressure....not high pressure...when they enter a building...so give us a break on that.

The OS has fell apart...and it keeps falling apart and it is coming to a point where they will need another serious senario to get the truthers off the track and they are trying it now...but dont worry Verm you just keep on believeing or trying to Debunk....people who want the truth are looking in the right direction now...rather than coming up with over the top senarios...we have been a nd will keep on focusing on what did not bring the towers down and we will keep looking to who really did this false flag Op before hopefully they seal the deal with another on at the expense of more innocent peoples lives.

Who had access to a highly trained, private, Ultra Right Wing
Mercenary Goon Squad capable of operating outside of the military
chain of command?

That and Marvin Bush being in charge of twin towers security and at Dulles International Airport.

$3 Trillion Dollars later, I think we've also established a motive.

I'll try saying it again. It wasn't just fire. It wasn't just fire. It. Wasn't. Just. Fire. We all know for a FACT that the oh so flimsy aluminum tube can cut through steel at the speed it was going. There was a huge hole in the trade center wall! And then, there are folk who are so full of themselves that they feel it is in their best interest to attempt to slander anyone who thinks differently than them.

It comes to mind that all most of you want to do is continue expanding the conspiracy theory until you're at the point that the government planned to do this in order to prepare the world for the alien false invasion that would take over everyone's lives in a socialist manner.

So, it wasn't JUST fire. The fires DIDN'T have to get to melting temperatures. They just had to weaken the steel, plus the damage, plus the varying temperatures. The blast from the impact would have shoved all the office material to the sides, where they would have burned compacted. The fire would be most intense there, and it would be least intense around the entry hole. The steel would be very cool on one side, and very hot on the other. ALSO, have any of you taken chemistry at all? I'm pretty sure that when you take an open flame to something, just because the flame burns at a certain temperature doesn't mean that's the hottest something will get. It is the exposure to the fire that keeps temperature rising in the metal.

As for the fires being "almost out" when the towers collapsed, don't you remember the molten aluminum (evidenced by its transition to silvery metal as it fell) dripping from the tower before it collapsed. Yeah, I'm not debunking anything here. I'm just telling the truth about what took place. It is the conspiracy theorists, the so-called truthers that are finding the debunking. It is apparently too much to handle to see someone talking about things they can see, wanting to rather rely on testimony that relies on opinion that no one else appears to corroborate. Just because it "appears" to fit the theory of explosives at first glance, you are willing to excuse ALL other factors that were present in 9/11.

If you are examining an event, you cannot ignore anything. You must take into account all factors. It's like me looking at a bullet wound and saying that because someone heard a stabbing sound, that the person was stabbed with a cylindrical spike, even though we found the bullet, the gun, and the shooter.

This is not to say that I have an explanation for a ring of flashes to be seen around the 7th floor of one of the buildings. Honestly, I'm not sure if it was a reference to the towers or to trade center seven. The video jumped around a lot. And the last part was sounding less and less impressive. The ejections described were "during" the collapse, not after the collapse, and it was due to the interior collapsing before the exterior got ejected out from the energy.

reply to post by Varemia


WOW molten Aluminium...hmmmm.....lets see ....how many air crashes have there been where the plane is engulfed in flames...for longer periods of time than 56mins.....please...the alumium cladding where the actual planes hit was not even molten....wow...and you want others to keep listening to you....i think if i was you i would really try harder....what i had said...was there was not enough aircraft material that whould be left after going into the outer steel skin that would penetrate enough to cause serious structural failyre...so my friend what would be the ONLY thing left to cause the collapse...FIRES.

ooooohhhhh my no let me think...unless there was some other reasons....but that would be speculating....so i wont go there....JUST you saying that the planes caused structural failure should be enough RIGHT....hmmm....that is very strange indeed.

well you just keep on believing the OS Verm....

cause no matter what is presented,it seems to me you will only keep spilling the same ol same ol.
once you realize that the planes were not enough to bring down the towers...let alone building 7.
that only leaves fires...and most people realize that is not at all the case.

Originally posted by Varemia


As for the fires being "almost out" when the towers collapsed, don't you remember the molten aluminum (evidenced by its transition to silvery metal as it fell) dripping from the tower before it collapsed.

Molten aluminum isnt red....but molten steel sure is....

"evidenced by its transition to silvery metal as it fell"....hmmmmm you sure sound like the guy who was interviewed just after the collaspe with some scipted line...on what caused the towers to collaspe...

It's obvious to all but the paid trolls or the hopelessly mainstream media brainwashed that 911 was an inside job.

We know they used some thermite because we know there was so much molten metal flowing down the channels of the beams that "it looked like a foundry". We also know they used some conventional explosives to weaken key structures as we have all the evidence of explosives.

But most don't know that there are many things that point to an underground nuclear demolition charge. Nuclear demolition is the only thing that can steel to dust. Thermite doesn't do that and conventional explosives don't do it. Remember, this, They didn't call it "Ground Zero" for nothing!

Ground Zero - the area directly above or below a nuclear explosion.

They put it right in your face!

You'll see all the evidence that small nuclear demolition charges were used on this page along with 27 videos from Dimitri Khalezov that knows a LOT more than any of you on this board about nuclear demolition because he was an expert for the Russians and was even informed in the 70s that the US planned to take down the towers and Bldg 7 at the end of their lives by nuclear demolition under the foundations. They put tunnels under the foundations to place the charges and Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) even got the patent on this process fro the towers! But of course, our fake media in this country never told you this.

Here's all the evidence that nuclear demolition was at play here: melted cars 6 blocks away, tritium levels at 55x normal, radiation badges given to workers who were told they were "air quality" badges when no such technology existed in 2001, ground zero did not cool to normal levels for 6 months even though water and other agents were being poured on it, strange cancers and other diseases just like radiation poisoning produces, There's a lot more at the videos.

www.project.nsearch.com...

structural failure in both trade center buildings were not caused in any way shape or form by either of those jet liners. there wasn't enough weight from the above floors to pancake EVERY SINGLE FLOOR that wasn't "SUPPOSEDLY" weakened from the fires and impacts. it had to be caused by surgically placed demolition explosives in order to produce the footprint freefall that occurred, and pulverize the concrete into dust particle, and liquefy solid steel structure into pools of molten iron that burned at 1000s of degrees weeks afterwards.

KNUCKLEHEADS .

reply to post by GlennCanady


your right they did put it right in your face didn't they...i have to agree...lets look at the definition of Ground Zero

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/56a58ca49e03.jpg[/atsimg]


I think that says a lot would you not agree.

reply to post by plube


Well, I guess that would be checkmate! Well done...

I wonder if someone can explain this to me? Let's say I have a slab of concrete measuring 100 by 100 feet. Let's call it 10 foot thick also. I hauled this concrete up to 1000 feet then "magically" suspended it on steel beams weakened by jet fuel. I then placed a steel (reinforced base) beam standing upright on the ground. Let's say the steel beams are the same diameter and thickness of a WTC steel beam. Then all of a sudden, magically remind you, the steel beams weakened enough for the slab to free fall HORIZONTALLY. Just visualize my setup with nothing in the middle of the weakened beams and the reinforced beam 1000 feet below. I mean really, you would have to visualize it that way because that appears to be how it happened to some.

Would the concrete slab crush the steel beam or would the steel beam punch a hole through the concrete?

Now it may or may not crush a steel beam on 1 and 2. But I highly doubt it would crush a steel beam on 7. Not to mention several steel beams with reinforced bases.

Matter of fact....

If the beams were weakened wouldn't it make sense that the buildings would sag first? And not sag at one time but sag in different spots first. Thus the top would tip over instead of the whole thing free falling?

Originally posted by Reevster

Originally posted by Varemia


As for the fires being "almost out" when the towers collapsed, don't you remember the molten aluminum (evidenced by its transition to silvery metal as it fell) dripping from the tower before it collapsed.

Molten aluminum isnt red....but molten steel sure is....

"evidenced by its transition to silvery metal as it fell"....hmmmmm you sure sound like the guy who was interviewed just after the collaspe with some scipted line...on what caused the towers to collaspe...

edit on 7-10-2010 by Reevster because: (no reason given)

Jesus Christ... Watch this video and look at the bits of molten aluminum as they fall. They sparkle. and there are other views in which the bigger chunks definitely look silvery.



It's as if you people intentionally try to ignore what is in plain view.

This is what melted aluminum looks like. Do you not see the difference? Now I guess the argument can be made the color of YOUR aluminum is caused by flames. But how do flames get mixed INTO the aluminum and not leap off the aluminum.