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

reply to post by plube


Why? Why do you do nothing to think about my question and instead attempt to slander my name as much as possible?

The fact of the matter is, if there was anything above the lobby that had the potential to explode under heat, then there is a logical explanation for explosions. When the planes hit the towers, the fire wasn't magically contained within the area that was hit. It rushed its way down every avenue it could, including elevator shafts. That means if anything caught fire on its way down elevators and what-not, then anything had the potential to explode if it was the right thing.

I haven't tried to slander you or make you look like an idiot once, plube. The fact that you sit at your computer and entertain yourself with trying to get ATS on your side and against me shows that you apparently are scared of what I have to say. (or is my using of other people's tactics against me just not as fun for you?)

For the record, I live on my own in a college dorm. I'm studying Anthropology and hold no expertise in the field of engineering or building collapse mechanics or building heat chemistry.

Edit: Jeez, I don't know how anyone can give you stars for what you posted. You said nothing constructive and practically violated the rules of conduct by attacking me and not the topic.

reply to post by Varemia


hmmm interesting Verm i have made good points and i could not care less if people come to my side or not...i post lots of valuble information and links...and the reason i may have got a star there is cause it is logical thinking of what is in a office bulidling....now i probably got your age right..i did not try to slander you...i simply pointed out logical thinking...it would not have mattered if there was a 45gallon drum of petrol on one floor....Office buildings are not chemical reserves...and there is protocal for buildings having loads of explosive materials...now i am sure you think logically in your anthropology...so try to think logically in this case.
those firemen were saying what they heard quite clearly...the point is here that for some reason the news media did not want that part spoken on the day and it took FOIA to get it released.
Now also the point is there was alot of noise going on in the building would you not think so...YES.
So therefore they were hearing over this noise the noise of explosions....not just the odd pop going here or there...also there was no fire.....on the lower floors...it was in the upper floors.
now you just keep on asking questions that really mislead the discussion rather than focussing what was being said....these are professional firefighters...they know the difference between combustibles and explosives...
the thing is Verm i don't just sit at my computer...i work and i also take the time to research and write letters and Emails to people that might someday might help in solving this crime...i also have a thread going where i write loads of info and bring in info on the Who done it thread i started...no glory and no great flags or stars...but i keep writing it...WHY...because i know that there will be enough others interested in solving this, and bringing the true perpetrators of this crime to trial....And i know they are also planning and have done other false flag ops in other countries to get the west to go to war on their behalf cause they are cowards.
It was not a bunch of Ill equipped box cutting muslims who did this....and It makes not one bit of difference if you think it is or not.
But cause i take the time...OUT of my busy days...to write things out...it is because i do care about all the Innocent people that are being caught in the crossfire.
I like many others from many countries have relatives fighting on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan for all the wrong reasons cause of these people who use the media...the goverments ..and people to get what they them selfish selves want.
So i campaign on their behalfs....so please dont give this BS that i slander you....cause you are just blind to see the logic.
you slander these very firefighters who are sittting there who just fought to save people from those buildings and are telling it like it is.
So show them some respect and fight for the truth.

reply to post by plube


My apologies then. Your post appeared to me (and likely others) to simply be a "look at how young and stupid this kid is."

I know you have made many points. I have heard them. I have also heard the other perspectives on the same points, and I find the other perspectives make more sense "to me" than yours have. Maybe I am seeing it wrong, but that is just what it is.

Just for the record, if say there was some kind of generator room (or something) that had stuff placed throughout the room, and some of it had caught fire at some point, then if one exploded couldn't it potentially lead to subsequent explosions? Plus, the explosions seem to be completely useless in the collapse of the building considering how long it took afterward for the building to come down. I just don't see the supreme significance of the video.

But again, maybe I'm missing something.

reply to post by Varemia


the thing i really believe your missing here and i know i am reapeting it...there were no...countem please...no fires on the lower floors...the first firefighters were at get this the 78th floor

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

this is aan excerp from the tapes that were realeased by a high court decision...otherwise they would never have been heard of

now the thing is...in my Opinion and many others this is the reason why the buildings were blown at this time...the firefighters were getting to close...rememaber the plane had struck just...three floors above this...So I think you should really rethink what your saying.
Also please please please go and read the transcripts from the site....man...it is like pulling teeth...and i am really thinking it is just not wotrh it with you.
But i also know it does help others to understand ...even if you don't get it.
And frankly I could not care one bit about you personally ...as i said before i care about the wider masses understanding so we can anil these...bas$(%* at their own game.

So Verm just start reading instead of having people dig(like myself who are doing our best to get the truth out there) start digging for yourself.

Wow, the denial of the 'truster'/trolltypes really is thick enough to to hide an elephant under your dining room table!

I am not a weapons/ or an explosives expert but neither am I a fireman... nevertheless I can see the weakness in a grocery clerk or a librarian trying to assert that firemen cannot tell the difference between the effects of fire-induced structural failures VERSUS explosions! do I sound sarcastic or just impatient?

I am in construction and have done small scale demoliton of reinforced driveways and also have experience cutting into and jackhammering / drilling into concrete walls and floors. It is very energy intensive work!... During projects I have used powder-actuated nailguns to drive nails into concrete, steel and cinderblock.

I have also heated steel rebar with propane and MAPP gas in order to get it glowing orange/red and soft enough to bend and hammer.... rebar is classified as 'mild' (softer) steel. It takes a lot of focused, hot burning flame to get even a SECTION of 1/2" or 3/8" mild steel red hot and soft enough to be considered 'plastic'. Maybe some of you so-called 'debunker' keyboard jockeys should go spend $40.00 on a small torch and some rebar and go get yourself some hands-on OJT (on the job training). Maybe this would help you get your minds right?

The beams, columns and trusses used in WTC towers ARE NOT 'MILD' STEEL. and they are only 1/4" thick at the very top. even at that they are not a single layer of 6mm plate which is enough to defeat a lead round, travelling at Mach2.3 (2700fps or 1800mph), from my .30 cal hunting rifle-- Plus, that steel was welded into rigid structual box-columns... so your aluminum fuselage and wings had two 6mm or greater thickness plates face-on to penetrate or tear and two 6mm plates edge on to defeat these 17" columns were on a 1metre center... More like a airframe shredder than an airframe 'catcher'. did ya follow that?.

I have also watched what a high-powered .30 caliber hunting rifle round does when confronted with 1/4"thick plate steel: if it is mild steel, the bullet can penetrate, if it is the kind of steel used in the outer columns of the twin Towers.... uh I don't think so...

My point is that I dont see how an airliner (read hollow aluminum tube) going (whatever) 500mph? (at sea level? yeah, right) can do to steel what a solid lead bullet going mach 2.3 (1800mph-- check out the ballistics of a 30-06 round) CANNOT ACHIEVE.

NOW IF THE PLANES HAD BEEN MADE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL AND THROWN HARD ENOUGH.... blah, blah blah...

what part of "DEMOLITION" you dizzy establishment apologists not understand?

SHEEZ ALREADY!

Seriously, these looney-toon pseudo-intellectual conspiracy 'deniers' need ta git a friggin grip!!!

reply to post by AntiShyster


Add to that that the columns were held together by spandrel plates in groups of 3 . These sections were then
BOLTED together in 30 ft tall sections

The aircraft impact snapped the welds and bolts holding the columns in place

Plane pushed its way into building

Description of WTC construction - note pictures of exterior wall columns

www.serendipity.li...

reply to post by thedman

Add to that that the columns were held together by spandrel plates in groups of 3 . These sections were then BOLTED together in 30 ft tall sections The aircraft impact snapped the welds and bolts holding the columns in place Plane pushed its way into building Description of WTC construction - note pictures of exterior wall columns

www.serendipity.li...

Your source link here

Now without fail you have proven once and for all:

YOU DO NOT READ YOUR OWN SOURCES!

Your are a supporter of the official story and my my you do try hard at posting some very [illogical at best] material on this forum.


[In red during the article is the persons additions noting the issues with the black text of the main article]

Here let me point out to you why you failed so harshly at using this source to support your claims:

To believe the silly little tale you are being told here, you must believe that the designers were fools and did not follow the law and design a building that could resist a serious multi-floor office fire. Note, that if the above scenario is correct then the towers would collapse in the event of any such fire. The aircraft impact plays no significant role in the sad little tale told here, only the fire.

The main view point of the article posted....

But the best is at right here:

2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse

The fact that the towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds (essentially free-fall) is massive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they did not encounter any resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that held the building up in the first place. From this one can conclude that the lower "undamaged" parts were actually very damaged (probably by a multitude of small explosive charges as in a controlled demolition).

So the overall viewpoint of the article is that The 9/11 OS is a fraud.

And your trying to say it isn't.

Good work!

thedman you sure don't pay any attention to what your saying at all. This is complete proof.

reply to post by theability


Throughout that article all I see is a guy inserting bits here and there about what "he thought" should have been done, then putting opinion after opinion on the FACTS. These guys were describing the layout of the floor trusses and the guy says something like "why didn't they design it like 'this?' it would have been way more stable for no extra cost." In other words, he is admitting that the towers weren't built the best way that they could have.

We're not calling the original engineers idiots, but they couldn't have anticipated an event like 9/11 in their constructions. Before you jump out and say "but! but! I thought they built it to withstand multiple immmpaacctssss!" Yes, impacts alone, fires alone, but not an impact of the size it was coupled with the fires that were not evenly flaming office fires. The steel was hotter on one side than others.

Thedman.....

Thanks for the link man!!

Did you read it??
Presumably you did or you wouldnt have posted it here in public...

Do your buddies know youve "turnedcoat"??


Honestly, I dont blame you....I could see you were taking a lot of strain....

reply to post by thedman


This person has shown himself / herself clearly a fool and not to be taken seriously. Proverbs gives some relevant advice, repeatedly in fact. The fool is to be be shunned. Everyone may have an opinion, just that not all opinions are of equal worth. When you rail simply to hear your own voice... well, methinks the woman protesteth too much!!! But they do take up space/ pay rent, use consumables and generate ratings-enhancing controversy for advert media such as we are seeing here.

Good day

reply to post by Varemia

Throughout that article all I see is a guy inserting bits here and there about what "he thought" should have been done, then putting opinion after opinion on the FACTS. These guys were describing the layout of the floor trusses and the guy says something like "why didn't they design it like 'this?' it would have been way more stable for no extra cost." In other words, he is admitting that the towers weren't built the best way that they could have.

We're not calling the original engineers idiots, but they couldn't have anticipated an event like 9/11 in their constructions. Before you jump out and say "but! but! I thought they built it to withstand multiple immmpaacctssss!" Yes, impacts alone, fires alone, but not an impact of the size it was coupled with the fires that were not evenly flaming office fires. The steel was hotter on one side than others.

First off don't quote me for bringing up the article.

I never said anything about the article except that thedman doesn't read his sources.

Other than that, don't put words in my mouth and act like I stand by the source quoted by another member.

Can you understand that? I am not the one that brought the source into the discussion.

Stop trying to distract.

reply to post by theability


Sorry, I wasn't actually talking about you at all. I was referring solely to the article itself.

reply to post by theability


So I didn't read it.....?

Did you miss this ? Did you bother to read it......?

The buildings' signature architectural design feature was the vertical fenestration, the predominant element of which was a series of closely spaced built-up box columns. At typical floors, a total of 59 of these perimeter columns were present along each of the flat faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch square section, spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center. Adjacent perimeter columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 inches in depth. In alternate stories, an additional column was present at the center of each of the chamfered building corners. The resulting configuration of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels created a perforated steel bearing-wall frame system that extended continuously around the building perimeter.

Column section held together by spandrel plates welded to the box column

Construction of the perimeter-wall frame made extensive use of modular shop prefabrication. In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction. Cap plates were provided at the tops and bottoms of each column, to permit bolted connection to the modules above and below. Access holes were provided at the inside face of the columns for attaching high-strength bolted connections. Connection strength varied throughout the building, ranging from four bolts at upper stories to six bolts at lower stories. Near the building base, supplemental welds were also utilized.

Erected in sections of 30 ft bolted together....

www.serendipity.li...

Impact damage from aircraft

At the central zone of impact corresponding to the airplane fuselage and engines, at least five of the prefabricated, three-column sections that formed the exterior walls were broken loose of the structure, and some were pushed inside the building envelope.

Broken loose of the structure ..... pushed inside building envelope.......

Locally, floors supported by these exterior wall sections appear to have partially collapsed, losing their support along the exterior wall. Away from this central zone, in areas impacted by the outer wing structures, the exterior columns were fractured by the force of the collision. Interpretation of photographic evidence suggests that from 31 to 36 columns on the north building face were destroyed over portions of a four-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this zone appear to have occurred over a horizontal length of wall of approximately 65 feet, while floors in other portions of the building appear to have remained intact. Figure 2-16 shows the damage to the exterior columns on the impacted face of WTC 1.

Columns fractured by outer wing structure.....

www.serendipity.li...

reply to post by thedman


Dude the article had stuff ADDED IN AFTER THE ORIGINAL WRITING!

It was a REBUTTAL!

:shk:

reply to post by theability


So what is wrong with the description of the buildiing construction?

Do you have evidence that the WTC was built in a different manner.....?

Love your work thedman.....


Haha....