Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

10 Questions for 9/11 Truthers

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

1) If the United States government was actually behind 9/11, hundreds, thousands, and maybe even ten thousands of people would have to be involved. Do you really believe that many Americans would stay quiet about the murder of 3,000 citizens by our own government?


A. It was not the entire government, but a criminal faction (conspiracy) that includes Vice President Cheney and several members of the Bush Administration.

B. The official story says that a handful of hijackers pulled this off. If a handful of hijackers from a cave could have done 9/11 then why would it take thousands of wealthy elite, wealthy americans to do the same job? Logic fail.


2) Some Truthers believe a car bomb or a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane. So how do they explain the witnesses, like James Robbins, who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?


A better question would be why doesn't the FBI just release the security video tapes that they confiscated?


3) If neither the WTC nor the Pentagon was hit by a plane (and, yes, there are Truthers who believe that), what happened to all the people on the planes?


I don't see how this question is very relevant to the ultimate destruction of the towers. First of all, most 'truthers' don't believe in the 'no-plane' theory. Secondly, the towers should not have fallen regardless of wether they were hit by planes or not. Planes are aluminum. Towers are steel. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel, and you could probably have flown dozens of airplanes into the towers without resulting in the towers CRUMBLING TO DUST.


4) Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. How do you explain that if our own government is really behind the attacks?


Actually he denied involvement in the attacks. The video of 'Osama' admitting to the attacks was a doppleganger (impersonator).


5) “The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (and) the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” None of these groups concluded the U.S. government was behind the attacks. So, were they all in on it or are they simply not privy to the same inside information that Alex Jones has?


If you control the executive branch of the government, you get to decide who is at the top of these agencies. If the chief executive of these agencies is complicit in the crime, they can easily steer the investigation away from any perpetrators within the government.


6) Bizarrely, despite the fact that the WTC was hit by planes, many Truthers claim the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. How in the world could that be done without people in the buildings noticing it? Why in the world would they wire the buildings with explosives and THEN fly planes into the buildings? It’s not as if terrorists hadn’t ever tried to bring down a building with bombs before.


The planes were not enough to cause the total destruction of the buildings. Nano-thermite was used. I don't know how they planted the bombs, but the head of the security company for the WTC was a relative of GW Bush.

Molten steel was reported by eye-witnesses (firefighters) in the rubble. Burning fuel and a natural collapse could not have created enough heat to create pools of molten steel. Nano-thermite can. www.youtube.com...



7) Certainly if there was a government conspiracy to target the WTC and Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have been involved. Would he really have arranged for a plane (or alternately, depending on how loopy you are, a missile or a car bomb) to be used on the Pentagon while he and undoubtedly his friends and staff, were there?


The part of the pentagon hit by planes was under renovation. I'm sure he would have warned any of his real friends to stay away from that area... as for his staff... I don't think he would really care if any of his staff dies for the greater cause (profit).


If the Bush Administration was actually behind 9/11, how do you explain the fact that they didn’t fake discovering weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? After all, if they were so corrupt that they’d be willing to kill 3000 Americans, surely they wouldn’t have any qualms about planting a few WMDs in Iraq.


They didn't really need to plant WMDs. They already justified the war and there was no going back at that point. Also it makes the public wonder... 'where did the WMDs go?' and then they can point the finger at Iran or North Korea.


9) What exactly is the Bush Administration’s motive for engineering an attack on Afghanistan supposed to be? Militarily, that was considered to be a high risk, low reward country to invade. If it were just about “popularity” (and historically, that’s a very iffy proposition), why not claim that a closer, easier target like Cuba was responsible?


Low reward??? 90% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan. The Taliban had seized control of the poppy fields. Also, they wanted to build a pipeline thorugh the country.


10) If the Bush Administration was really behind 9/11, then surely the Obama Administration must be aware of it by now and they’d have every incentive to reveal it in order to damage the Republican Party. Why haven’t they done it? Are they in on it, too?


Yes.




posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Yes we cant forget the opium conection. bin ladin was bushs heroin dealer. Tim osman was swopping weapons for heroin. Then he cut bush out of the deal. Maybe thats why he was blamed for 911. The taliban then flooded europe with heroin, whilst cutting the use at home. Opium wars were happening a long time before 911. A lot of money for the black budgets came from drugs. Heroin and coc aine.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The plane only had to shear the steel it came in contact with. A .22 bullet weighs 40 grains, about 0.000038 times as much as a 150 pound human. Your version of impossible physics says that if you are shot with a .22, it should have no effect on you because you are 26,250 times as massive as a .22 bullet.


Oh no, another nitwit comparing a bullet hitting an animate object to an airliner hitting a inanimate skyscraper.

Shoot a 6 foot tree stump with a bullet and see what happens. Skyscrapers don't have knees, muscles and blood or experience pain.

psik



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Each WTC tower was more than 200 TIMES the mass of the airliner.



OOPS! That was a mistake. That was supposed to be 2,000 TIMES the mass of the airliners.

psik



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by pteridine
The plane only had to shear the steel it came in contact with. A .22 bullet weighs 40 grains, about 0.000038 times as much as a 150 pound human. Your version of impossible physics says that if you are shot with a .22, it should have no effect on you because you are 26,250 times as massive as a .22 bullet.


Oh no, another nitwit comparing a bullet hitting an animate object to an airliner hitting a inanimate skyscraper.

Shoot a 6 foot tree stump with a bullet and see what happens. Skyscrapers don't have knees, muscles and blood or experience pain.

psik
.
I thought that a nitwit comment would be most understandable to you. You didn't like the bullet into the person and I don't know if you have any experience with projectiles striking anything else. The tree stump is an even worse analogy than the human.
Several people tried to explain the difference between an elastic and a non-elastic collision to you but you didn't learn. We tried the plane penetrating a capital ship weighing thousands of times more, and that didn't take. We explained how the sectional density of the plane was important only to the part of the structure that it impacted and that didn't take either.
I guess that you'll just have to keep trying.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The tree stump is an even worse analogy than the human.
Several people tried to explain the difference between an elastic and a non-elastic collision to you but you didn't learn. We tried the plane penetrating a capital ship weighing thousands of times more, and that didn't take. We explained how the sectional density of the plane was important only to the part of the structure that it impacted and that didn't take either.
I guess that you'll just have to keep trying.


So you keep CLAIMING things that are not important are. SO WHAT?

Skyscrapers do not have knees that can bend. Trees don't have them either.

People do. You are saying a person is more similar to a skyscraper than a tree stump. That is very impressive.

I never said anything about the sectional density of the plane only the total mass. The density of the building would have been greater than that of the plane. Buildings do not have to fly. I never claimed the collision was elastic. The plane did not bounce off. The south tower deflected 14 inches and oscillated for four minutes.

psik



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by pteridine
The tree stump is an even worse analogy than the human.
Several people tried to explain the difference between an elastic and a non-elastic collision to you but you didn't learn. We tried the plane penetrating a capital ship weighing thousands of times more, and that didn't take. We explained how the sectional density of the plane was important only to the part of the structure that it impacted and that didn't take either.
I guess that you'll just have to keep trying.


So you keep CLAIMING things that are not important are. SO WHAT?

Skyscrapers do not have knees that can bend. Trees don't have them either.

People do. You are saying a person is more similar to a skyscraper than a tree stump. That is very impressive.

I never said anything about the sectional density of the plane only the total mass. The density of the building would have been greater than that of the plane. Buildings do not have to fly. I never claimed the collision was elastic. The plane did not bounce off. The south tower deflected 14 inches and oscillated for four minutes.

psik


I never calculated the bulk density of the building or the aircraft. Why do you think those matter?

Your original post was "Each WTC tower was more than 200 TIMES the mass of the airliner. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. How many tons of steel were on every level of the WTC? How many tons of concrete were on every level. That is only 232 numbers but the NIST could not put then into their 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000."

The only steel that matters is the steel that came into direct contact with the aircraft.

"The Physics is IMPOSSIBLE." Why do you think it is impossible?

"How many tons of steel had to weaken in 102 minutes?" That is difficult to assess as there is no knowledge of the details of core column damage and what columns were required to fail to start the collapse.

"The south tower only deflected 15 inches when the plane impacted." That is because the aircraft spent much of its energy shearing columns rather than pushing the building around.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you really want to irritate pteridine, just pick any claim he makes at random and ask for a source for where he's getting his information. Making claims that are based on actual evidence is something apparently totally alien to pteridine, because he's used to arguing out of pure pompousness, and he'll just start ranting and insulting you in response. Give a try. Just pick a claim and ask for a source that verifies his information.



Here's an example of a claim he made earlier on the previous page:



If logic were to be applied to the issue, not a common event with the truthers, a commercial airliner full of fuel is far more damaging than any puny, non-nuclear cruise missile.



If pressed on what "logic" he's talking about, you'll no doubt just get insulted in response. In fact there's already an insult embedded into this very quote. The "logic" behind asserting that a plane full of fuel can cause more damage than a missile is... (He's not actually using logic at all.
)


Like I said, give it a try. It's hilarious.
edit on 9-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you really want to irritate pteridine, just pick any claim he makes at random and ask for a source for where he's getting his information. Making claims that are based on actual evidence is something apparently totally alien to pteridine, because he's used to arguing out of pure pompousness, and he'll just start ranting and insulting you in response. Give a try. Just pick a claim and ask for a source that verifies his information.



Here's an example of a claim he made earlier on the previous page:



If logic were to be applied to the issue, not a common event with the truthers, a commercial airliner full of fuel is far more damaging than any puny, non-nuclear cruise missile.



If pressed on what "logic" he's talking about, you'll no doubt just get insulted in response. In fact there's already an insult embedded into this very quote. The "logic" behind asserting that a plane full of fuel can cause more damage than a missile is... (He's not actually using logic at all.
)


Like I said, give it a try. It's hilarious.
edit on 9-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


I can see that my continued deflations of your oversized ego have led you to this. We could just as easily say, "if you want to irritate BSBray, ask him to come up with ANY theory of the 911 events or ANY original thought. These are something apparently totally alien to Bray, because he's used to arguing out of pure pompousness, and he'll just start ranting for pages and insulting you in response. Give it a try."



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I can see that my continued deflations of your oversized ego have led you to this. We could just as easily say, "if you want to irritate BSBray, ask him to come up with ANY theory of the 911 events or ANY original thought. These are something apparently totally alien to Bray, because he's used to arguing out of pure pompousness, and he'll just start ranting for pages and insulting you in response. Give it a try."


So the fact that vertebrates have KNEES and skyscrapers and tree stumps do not has something to do with my EGO!

lol: lol: ROFLMAO lol: lol:

I am not coming up with a theory of the 9/11 events. I am talking about the physics of determining whether or not an airliner with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel can OBLITERATE a building 2000 TIMES its mass in less than TWO HOURS.

But NINE YEARS later Official Sources do not supply us with the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.

psik:



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am not coming up with a theory of the 9/11 events. I am talking about the physics of determining whether or not an airliner with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel can OBLITERATE a building 2000 TIMES its mass in less than TWO HOURS.

But NINE YEARS later Official Sources do not supply us with the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.

psik:


I was responding to the bs braying of BSBray, not you. Your LOL extravaganza was wasted.

Except for the structure disrupted by the aircraft and weakened by fire, how would the distributions of steel and concrete in the buildings help you? Are you saying that the airliner did not shear columns or that the fires did not weaken the steel or are you saying that even with this damage that the structure would have been strong enough to resist collapse even when the top section fell on the rest of the building?



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I can see that my continued deflations of your oversized ego have led you to this. We could just as easily say, "if you want to irritate BSBray, ask him to come up with ANY theory of the 911 events or ANY original thought. These are something apparently totally alien to Bray, because he's used to arguing out of pure pompousness, and he'll just start ranting for pages and insulting you in response. Give it a try."


I don't have to make up theories so you can write cute little rants about them. Congress assigned that responsibility to NIST.


So where's your source that a jet full of fuel can cause more damage than a missile?



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I found this article, and wanted to see what your guys responses are. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and think that most if not all 10 of these questions can be answered logically.


1) If the United States government was actually behind 9/11, hundreds, thousands, and maybe even ten thousands of people would have to be involved. Do you really believe that many Americans would stay quiet about the murder of 3,000 citizens by our own government?


The Manhattan project involved many more people and was kept quiet for many years. Imagine different departments. Department A consists of a few elite and powerful people, they know EXACTLY what happened and planned it all, giving the orders to the different departments (which contained at least one person per department who was allowed the same access as those in Dept A). Department A need only involve a few military top brass, a few CIA and FBI top brass and a few top people from the media. Instructions are passed to the different departments without giving the reasons why (if you worked for the government would you question top orders or just do?) and these orders wouldn't give the plot away; some would be passed to Dept. B who deal with that part of the jigsaw, some to Dept. C who deal with that part and so on. When the parts of the jigsaw come together (as it did on 9/11) and some people begin to think they have had a part of it, how many would come forward and risk their income, their safety (and that of their loved ones), their reputation. And who do they talk to if key players in the media are refusing to report it. And it hasn't stayed secret, there HAVE been whistle-blowers and many of these have met grisly ends, most have been gagged and at the very least they are no longer in their positions.



2) Some Truthers believe a car bomb or a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane. So how do they explain the witnesses, like James Robbins, who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

A lot of the initial reports from witnesses that day haven't been repeated, and some of those witnesses have changed what they said on the first day. Be careful with the Pentagon. There is no proof that a plane didn't hit it and the Government could well have video proof of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (unlikely as why wait so long) but if the Truthers movement ever gained a lot of momentum and much emphasis was placed on the Pentagon attack then a few videos of the 757 hitting the Pentagon could be very damaging to the Truth Movement. One thing I would ask to those who point to the witness testimony is why is the testimony at the Pentagon so heavily relied upon when they dismiss the witnesses who heard explosions etc. at the Twin Towers. Either we accept eye witness testimony or we don't, and it works both ways, can we point to all the testimony at the towers if we dismiss the testimony at the Pentagon? I do know that a few people from the Pentagon whose testimony backed up the 757 incident have since been promoted and others worked for CNN.





3) If neither the WTC nor the Pentagon was hit by a plane (and, yes, there are Truthers who believe that), what happened to all the people on the planes?
I think that both towers were hit, but the Pentagon was not. Maybe the people on the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon were taken to another airport, possibly on a government base, and killed. If they're going to kill 3,000 people in a terrorist attack, I would assume they would have no problem gunning down a few dozen innocent people.



Many of the people on the 757 that supposedly struck the Pentagon were people that worked for the government. Of the 64 passengers 21 worked in government/defence related posts. 10 had military backgrounds, 7 had navy backgrounds. 5 were chief officers or executives and 18 were senior management. Assuming the plane didn't hit and kill them all then why do we have to assume that they are dead? They could be continuing the work they were doing under different names. I would point out that all but one of the 64 passengers were accounted for, somehow surviving the intense heat that destroyed titanium plane parts!

4) Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. How do you explain that if our own government is really behind the attacks?


Show me a video that conclusively proves him admitting the crimes? At best the video has been described as 'most likely a fake' by experts. The FBI also concede that they have no proof he was behind the attacks and quotes attributed to him have him denying involvement. I doubt that he is even still alive and is the ultimate patsy/bogeyman being used by the very same government who funded, trained and instructed him. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family are incredibly close and he was always seen as 'the black sheep'. If it suited them both then why would they not be prepared to pretend he was still alive (probably died from liver failure and they are making the most of it). Both families have made masses of money from the war on terror.



5) “The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (and) the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” None of these groups concluded the U.S. government was behind the attacks. So, were they all in on it or are they simply not privy to the same inside information that Alex Jones has?


Who on the commission was truly independent with nothing to gain from sticking to the story? Why are there so many omissions? Why was Bush and Cheney allowed to testify without being under oath (and in private) if they had nothing to hide? Why have some members resigned in disgust, saying the investigation was tainted? Why did the government try to put Kissinger in charge of it, the king of cover ups? Why were FEMA in New York the day before the attacks? Why did the CIA prevent FBI investigators from getting too close to the alleged terrorists? Why would they bite the hands that feed them? Why does it not touch on why WTC7 fell, or the discrepancies between what the FAA and NORAD say? Why does it only look at the towers up to the initiation of the collapse and not why they collapsed as they did?



6) Bizarrely, despite the fact that the WTC was hit by planes, many Truthers claim the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. How in the world could that be done without people in the buildings noticing it? Why in the world would they wire the buildings with explosives and THEN fly planes into the buildings? It’s not as if terrorists hadn’t ever tried to bring down a building with bombs before.


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth presents clear evidence that the buildings were pulled down, all three of them. Who was in charge of security of the towers? Who owned all three towers and stood to gain? Why were there many unusual drills leading up to the attacks? There was work being done to the elevators in the months prior to the attacks, that presented the ideal opportunity to place thermite. How could Al-Qaeda have gained access to the buildings (especially WTC7 that contained the Secret Service amongst other tenants)? The previous attempt on the World Trade Centre failed, they had to make sure that this time they didn't. They were hoping on the shock and awe of what happened with the planes preventing people from waking up to smell the thermite.




7) Certainly if there was a government conspiracy to target the WTC and Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have been involved. Would he really have arranged for a plane (or alternately, depending on how loopy you are, a missile or a car bomb) to be used on the Pentagon while he and undoubtedly his friends and staff, were there?


The majority of the victims were contractors who were working on the renovation. This attack tested the fortification and also killed a fair few accountants, conveniently just after Rumsfeld had declared that trillions of dollars were unaccounted for. The plane (if indeed the events of the day are to be believed) went out of its way - whilst risking being shot down- to pass where Rumsfeld's office was and to hit a different section. Rumsfeld was entirely safe and had only hours before predicted something 'big' about to happen soon.




8) If the Bush Administration was actually behind 9/11, how do you explain the fact that they didn’t fake discovering weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? After all, if they were so corrupt that they’d be willing to kill 3000 Americans, surely they wouldn’t have any qualms about planting a few WMDs in Iraq.


The media in foreign countries isn't as easily manipulated as domestic media. Also, it would have involved soldiers on the ground having to be in on it and not just those in the elite. Not discounting the arrogance factor, 9/11 changed anything, it didn't matter that none were found, they could do what they wanted anyway under the war on terror premise. It also wouldn't be just a matter of planting a few, they wouldn't be found in a warehouse or some field but in premises designed and built for housing such weapons. These places didn't exist and it is easier to justify being over there because of 9/11 than it is in actually finding any weapons. The threat of terror was a weapon.



9) What exactly is the Bush Administration’s motive for engineering an attack on Afghanistan supposed to be? Militarily, that was considered to be a high risk, low reward country to invade. If it were just about “popularity” (and historically, that’s a very iffy proposition), why not claim that a closer, easier target like Cuba was responsible?


They had planned to attack before 9/11. We all know the need for a 'new Pearl Harbour'. As you rightly say, oil. Libya was always on the cards too. There are human rights violations going on all over the world but it is only those with resources that we covet that we get involved in. How ironic that many of the 'rebels' who are firing American weapons in Libya today are actually Al-Qaeda. Next will be Syria, Korea and one day China. Afghanistan was not low reward, there are pipelines to be built that will lead to trillions.



10) If the Bush Administration was really behind 9/11, then surely the Obama Administration must be aware of it by now and they’d have every incentive to reveal it in order to damage the Republican Party. Why haven’t they done it? Are they in on it, too?


The elite pick who gets put in charge, either way they are chosen and controlled. Is this the same President who said he planned to close Guantanamo Bay in an attempt to distance himself from the Bush administration yet is now planning to try 9/11 patsies there? It is naive to think that the people in charge is the person in the headlines. That has never been the case and never will be.

edit on 10-4-2011 by md1807 because: errors



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I want to answer OP question number 8. Have you ever noticed that they "TPTB" do things that any reasonably intelligent Human can see right through. I think they get a kick out of have so much power they can do what they want. They can make up a bogus story that we all have to follow. They can go to War on bogus terms and have the power not to even try to justify them......That's how powerful they are.......They make me sick........



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Yerp, all that steel was melted by the jet fuel, and this lady is just chillin, waving for help. Her melting point must be higher than steel.





posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Yerp, all that steel was melted by the jet fuel, and this lady is just chillin, waving for help. Her melting point must be higher than steel.





posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


One problem whackjob - she jumped to her death few minutes later.....

Awful choise - either being burned alive or jumping.........



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I found this article, and wanted to see what your guys responses are. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and think that most if not all 10 of these questions can be answered logically.

1) If the United States government was actually behind 9/11, hundreds, thousands, and maybe even ten thousands of people would have to be involved. Do you really believe that many Americans would stay quiet about the murder of 3,000 citizens by our own government?


I did a search of that page for the word "physics".

It does not appear in the article but one of the comments by "smooth subliminal" used it twice.

This is not about the government. This is not about inside jobs. This is no about Islamofascism, whatever the hell that is.

This is about PHYSICS. If airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel could destroy building 2000 times their mass in two hours while almost totally obliterating the buildings then the physics profession should be able to explain it on the basis of complete and accurate and detailed information on the buildings and planes and at least 75% of all physicists should be willing to publicly go along with the explanation. It would have to be explainable within Newtonian Physics so actually more like 95% of them should agree.

But if planes couldn't do it the physicists should agree to that also.

But if planes could not do it then that opens a HUGE can of worms. It could mean that social reality is not what we thought it was and it never was. It means we have been handed a load of crap since we were little kids. Some people do not want to consider that possibility.

But physics takes priority over anything involving human social behavior. People cannot change physics.

psik
edit on 28-3-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by homervb
 


One problem whackjob - she jumped to her death few minutes later.....

Awful choise - either being burned alive or jumping.........


My point is she shouldn't have been able to do that if the infernos were as serious as described. The towers were just pouring with black smoke which is a huge indicator of an oxygen starved fire. There were firemen who reached the impact zone right before the towers collapsed.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Actually it's usually the smoke that gets people, long before the flames do.

Fires don't have to be huge to create smoke.


Smoke and toxic gases kill more people than flames do.


www.usfa.fema.gov...

That is why people were hanging and falling out of windows, trying to get fresh air.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join