9/11 Survivor surfed debris of collapsing tower

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by r2d246
 


But there was pancaked debris found in the pile. There were thousands of tons of debris found from the WTC. It was not dustified. They found floors stacked and squeezed together during clean up.

Dr. Judy Wood is a joke. And I mean that in the best way possible. She use pictures of cars that were burnt by debris and fires that were towed to other locations as "PROOF!!!!111!!" of special exotic weapons used. That is dishonest at best, ignorance and stupidity at its worst. She makes up non-existant special magical weapons with virtually NO proof, just hunches and random ideas, and lots of "looks like, sounds like, acts like," stuff. Oh yeah and grainy video, the truth movement's defacto "evidence" producer.


Yes your right. It was exactly the way they told us it was on CNN. No reality exists outside what we're told to believe on CNN. As TPTB would never ever in a million years lie to anyone! And all this mumbo jumbo about false flag operations, what a joke that is. There's no such thing. A nation that has the most powerful army and hardware in the world would never instigate a war. Not a chance. And I'd trust my own dog in the care of Chainee, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush. They're very good people you know.
edit on 23-9-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-9-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


do you think that 60+stories of steel columns were stopped at street level? And that the steel fell into the 7 stories below? And that it STILL didn't damage the "bathtub" at all?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by r2d246
 


But there was pancaked debris found in the pile. There were thousands of tons of debris found from the WTC. It was not dustified. They found floors stacked and squeezed together during clean up.

Dr. Judy Wood is a joke. And I mean that in the best way possible. She use pictures of cars that were burnt by debris and fires that were towed to other locations as "PROOF!!!!111!!" of special exotic weapons used. That is dishonest at best, ignorance and stupidity at its worst. She makes up non-existant special magical weapons with virtually NO proof, just hunches and random ideas, and lots of "looks like, sounds like, acts like," stuff. Oh yeah and grainy video, the truth movement's defacto "evidence" producer.


I've actually listened to a handful of Dr. Judy Wood interviews and looked into her friend Andrew Johnson's site and work.

What gets me is her book (Which I have not read.) and the fact it is/seems so expensive.

No matter that she has offered on air to simply give it free to some noted truthers, I mean why is it so expensive? Why is it a giant book? Why not offer it up as a free PDF and if you find it useful correct and deeply satisfying, then send her the money. That's how I feel.

People died. You go on internet radio shows and youtube videos, you travel around and do seminars and all the work involved in that. You harp on and on in the interviews that everyone else and their evidence is barking up the wrong tree and yet you don't release your truth proving settle everything once and for all book to the public on the honor payment system. Ok.

Like if I have the truth of 9/11 in a book I wouldn't care how many years it took me to write it I would have it downloadable for FREE in every format known to Mankind.

If you got the Truth quit saying it, show it to everyone. Just my opinion. I think the sale of the massive book actually hinders the truth mission she claims to be on.

Now, of course you have the pics of the pancaked debris to show us all handy right? And will post them too right?

Another thing that bothers me about Dr. Judy Wood is her ready acceptance of photographic evidence like just the stuff that we can all get etc. For if it's true that there's "Hollywoodizing" going on and a multitude of deception methods then it stands to reason with photoshop and everything that it seems foolhardy to just gloss over the potential manipulation of photos and video. This aspect of her work greatly concerns me.

I take exception to your "grainy video" quip...

For me, I take into account the possibility of manipulated imagery, but I still look at it because I don't think that ALL of 9/11 was video fakery. Portions of it may be though. And if a solid argument for ALL of it being FAKE can seriously be made I'll give a serious listen to it.

I simply think that it's too massive a project to fake it all and you possibly only need to fake some for best deceptive effect.

Back to the quip. What you gonna do? You got to look at something. It might be lousy quality and not even be real but you got to review it anyway.

Take my avatar pic. It's a single screen capture from the Naudet 'Fireman's Video'. It might fall into your "grainy video" category. So what does this grainy video I keep going on about actually show?

Now everyone play along here ok. Imagine we're not even talking about 9/11 and a plane into a building. I just show you a pic from a screen shot from a DVD video and ask you some questions about it? Like do you think it shows the damage pattern of a 767 impacting anything?

Umm, NO. No it doesn't.

Just as a mental experiment unrelated to 9/11 think about it. There is an "isolated" bump on the right where the right wing tip should be/impact. This is impossible. (And it's a better impossible than say what caused the "isolated ejections" that's still just some maybe type thing.)

A plane crashing into a flat face anything would not produce an isolated damage bump out near the right wing tip, why, because the wing is one long continuous connected thing and parts of it closer to the fuselage (because it's on an angle) would hit the building long before anything out near the wing tip. This is a mechanical fact.

And yet this is not what is seen in the screen cap.

So people in here talk about the Spire and did it fall down or turn to dust. They talk about isolated ejections are they pancaking, explosives, or rogue falling beams? Who can say for certain?

I say my grainy screen capture pic shows something that is impossible and should not be seen if in fact a 767 hit the North Tower.

So either no plane did or the video is fraudulent in some way. But why would it be if a real plane went in there?

Either way it PROVES DECEPTION. On somebody's part no doubt but it's proven.



Cheers



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I think you meant to say in your book and your opinion. I'm pretty sure I corrected you on this in my previous post as well.


No, I am talking about people that matter, like experts. If you do not believe me, contact them. Ask them.


You wish to accept only those experts that matter to you and what you wish to believe in. There are other experts, many more, in fact, that have come out against the official conspiracy theory than have come out in support of it.


Many more? Can you please name, say 5 experts on building demolitions or explosives that say those buildings were rigged with explosives? And be careful with posting Jawenko because you will of course be confronted with the fact that he agrees that the towers were not controlled demolition.



Originally posted by -PLB-This statement takes the cake. Because you can't disprove my "flawed line of reasoning", you just simply dismiss all of the evidence? Wow.


Huh? A flawed line of reasoning is disproved by definition. I showed why your line of reasoning is flawed (explosions != explosives) so I am done. It is up to you to come with evidence that those explosions actually came from explosives.



* Flashes seen by multiple witnesses going up, down and around both towers on the lower to middle levels of the towers while they were collapsing above. The flashes also had popping sounds associated with them. (Flashes going up, down and around a building with popping sounds have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)


Flashes are also seen when windows break and reflect sunlight. Your statement that it has only ever been seen in controlled demolition is just completely meaningless. First of all there is no way to compare those flashes with the ones observed in actual demolitions, as the flashes mysteriously failed to record on camera. And secondly, you do not have any material to compare to.


* Isolated ejections. (Isolated ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.)


And again, you don't have any material to compare to. As said the ejections accelerate, unlike any controlled demolition. A fact ignored by you as if it is kryptonite. Facts don't disappear just by ignoring them.


* Timed / synchronous booms. (Timed / synchronous booms have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.)


Again, you have nothing to compare to.

Did you read what I wrote about the Delft building? This huge explosion? So looking only at the Delft case we can say: Huge explosions have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.

Flawed line of reasoning. You can of course ignore this again, and silently choose for the fallacy special pleading. But ignoring my arguments does not make your right.



I ask you to prove me wrong. Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition. If you can, then I'll never say that the towers were brought down by explosives for as long as I live.


Sure, give me a list of skyscrapers that had airliners crashed in them resulting in large fire, and I will show you the ones that exhibit flashes, isolated ejections and times booms. Oh wait, forgot, we don't have anything to compare to.

And that isn't even the full extend of your flaws in your reasoning. It goes even further. Even if we had say 100 other occasions with a similar scenario, that still does not mean that every singly occasion has to behave the same. Different building designs, different damage, different result.




Until then, that is what happened based on all available evidence and testimony. And I'll never waiver from that position because I know there are no other building collapses that exhibit all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but really aren't controlled demolitions.


You are free to believe what you want, though in my opinion its a shame when people believe in such nonsense. I don't think it is healthy to ignore that the experts on the subject disagree with your position. So does the video evidence, the tangible evidence in the debris, and most of the witnesses.




edit on 23-9-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I ask you to prove me wrong. Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition. If you can, then I'll never say that the towers were brought down by explosives for as long as I live.

Until then, that is what happened based on all available evidence and testimony. And I'll never waiver from that position because I know there are no other building collapses that exhibit all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but really aren't controlled demolitions.


My previous post was mostly debunking (which is of course good, bunk must be eliminated), in this post I will offer you a challenge:

Show me a a single piece of evidence of a column from ground zero that was cut or damaged by explosives. It can be an image, a video, or even an eyewitness testimony.

Or alternatively, in failure of providing the above, explain how it is possible that among the thousands of people, among which experts, who examined or removed the debris failed to notice this odd damage to columns. Also explain how the many columns that were recorded on image or video don't show any signs of damage from these alleged explosives. Not one.

Or alternatively, in failure to do so, what do you think of the likeliness of your idea to be actually true in light of failure of meeting the challenge I posted above?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The point was how could someone survive from a 20fl fall? There's not a lot of ways that could happen. 1) God intervention. 2) The dust theory. Not sure what other explainations? Maybe if he put himself inside some kind of container that offered him protection. Like a steel cubbard or something. Anything else and he'd be dead for sure. If that's a real story that is.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by r2d246
 


But there was pancaked debris found in the pile. There were thousands of tons of debris found from the WTC. It was not dustified. They found floors stacked and squeezed together during clean up.

Dr. Judy Wood is a joke. And I mean that in the best way possible. She use pictures of cars that were burnt by debris and fires that were towed to other locations as "PROOF!!!!111!!" of special exotic weapons used. That is dishonest at best, ignorance and stupidity at its worst. She makes up non-existant special magical weapons with virtually NO proof, just hunches and random ideas, and lots of "looks like, sounds like, acts like," stuff. Oh yeah and grainy video, the truth movement's defacto "evidence" producer.


Yes your right. It was exactly the way they told us it was on CNN. No reality exists outside what we're told to believe on CNN. As TPTB would never ever in a million years lie to anyone! And all this mumbo jumbo about false flag operations, what a joke that is. There's no such thing. A nation that has the most powerful army and hardware in the world would never instigate a war. Not a chance. And I'd trust my own dog in the care of Chainee, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush. They're very good people you know.
edit on 23-9-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-9-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)


Well I can actually back up what I say. I'll give you a nice hint and headstart, ATS has a search engine. I would reccomend starting there, as I have already posted this information quite a few times. Also, pictures of said stacks as well as even workers firsthand accounts of the conditions while cutting into the pile. Since due to new work schedualing, I cannot be online as much as I used to be before. So i hope you will excuse me for not reposting information that I have put up before. Keywords would include my screen name, compressed floors, workers accounts, stacks, pancaked floors pictures. It is all there for you to access. If I had more time and access I would be glad to repost it all. But now, I leave the ball in your court.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You can explain away the evidence however you see fit to help you sleep at night. But, my request stilll goes unchallenged:


Show me another building collapse that exhibits flashes, isolated ejections, and timed booms that is not from a controlled demolition.




I challenge you then as well. Show me another building that had a 767 impact it at 500+mph, had fires burn across multiple floors, had a design exactly like the WTC, and survived.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Wait! Not so fast...

I actually tried to cover this in my post by saying I didn't think the speed of the 'collapse wave' allowed for the damage of "isolated ejections" to have been created by falling rogue beams and the Spire video actually backs me up.


Well I believe that he may have been wrong in his line of thinking, he was just trying to give alternate possibilities as to what caused the observed affects. Also could have been falling elevator machinery getting blown down by the compressed air down the shafts impacting mechanical floors, who knows?



The leaning and 'falling' observed in the Spire clip occur AFTER the floors have 'collapsed'.


correct!



So the Spire could magically split into 13 vertical sections and all fall over horizontally and then vertical again for all I care - falling beams would be too late to cause any lower floor window poking.


Well The core columns were not self-supporting once the exterior has been stripped away. So yes, falling beams may have not been able to cause that. Again, it was just speculation.



Many people seem to think and characterize the towers as like 2 big vertical piles of Jenga building blocks of steel, glass and aluminum etc. Not seeming to take into account the fact that these pieces of various material weren't just laying on each other all the way up in handy pop out sections, but all bolted and welded together, to themselves and to each other.


Well of course they were bolted and everything you said, but remember, its not just how they are connected, but how the set up is. The floors themselves were hanging floors, by which I mean they were hanging between the interior and interior columns on those truss seats. Most buildings have steel I-beams welded to vertical beams that support the floors. Design matters too!



What happened to the rest of the core adjacent to and above the Spire? People could think the whole thing fell over or fell down (in many tiny attached to nothing it seems pieces) but there's no evidence really of either.


Well obviously a section of the core was still intact in the section that tilted. Think of it this way: You have your vertical beams, which can be visualized like a bunch of straws arranged in a pattern like how the core was. Then have an offset brick (again, this is just for visualization purposes only, to roughly illustrate how the core columns most likely behaved during the collapse) go off center and fall "through" the core columns. Its going to spread the columns away from each other and cause some to fall over like an arrow split by another arrow.



You seem to concede that despite your belief it wasn't explosives that the 'ejections' are of a pressurized variety. They look pressurized to me too.

But if it were explosives, like you indicate, there would be even more of these 'ejections' no doubt. On this I agree. Should see more of them really on more floors maybe.


Exactly! Plus we more windows would be blasted out, exterior aluminum cladding would have been knocked off as well!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
And be careful with posting Jawenko because you will of course be confronted with the fact that he agrees that the towers were not controlled demolition.

That's because he was only shown the collapse videos. He wasn't show all of the other evidence. And he does, however, believe that there's no doubt that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. Something the official conspiracy crowd still denies to this day.

Then there's the former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Tom Sullivan, who also agrees that the towers and WTC 7 were brought down with explosives.



Originally posted by -PLB-
A flawed line of reasoning is disproved by definition.

And for the third time, it's only a flawed line of reasoning in your opinion.



Originally posted by -PLB-
Flashes are also seen when windows break and reflect sunlight.

Except for the witnesses said the flashes were inside the building on the lower floors of the towers while the buildings started collapsing above. Hence no broken windows below to cause the flashes and no debris from above yet.



Originally posted by -PLB-
And again, you don't have any material to compare to. As said the ejections accelerate, unlike any controlled demolition. A fact ignored by you as if it is kryptonite.

Because it's not a fact. It's your opinion again. How many videos of controlled demolitions have you watched? How many years have you researched controlled demolitions? I have videos that have isolated ejections that look and behave exactly like the one's at the WTC.

So, you're correct in asserting that I'm ignoring your opinion because real research in the real world has proven otherwise.



Originally posted by -PLB-
You can of course ignore this again, and silently choose for the fallacy special pleading. But ignoring my arguments does not make your right.

And typing your opinions onto a screen doesn't make your right. I'll take the word of the many, many witnesses that were actually there over the words of an anonymous internet personality.



Originally posted by -PLB-
Sure, give me a list of skyscrapers that had airliners crashed in them resulting in large fire, and I will show you the ones that exhibit flashes, isolated ejections and times booms. Oh wait, forgot, we don't have anything to compare to.

There's been numerous examples of steel-structured highrises that have had far worse and longer-burning fires. And not only did none of them collapse, almost all of them never even had a localized collapse where the fires were.



Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't think it is healthy to ignore that the experts on the subject disagree with your position.

Depends on which experts you listen to. Remember, there are far more experts that have come out publicly against the official conspiracy theory than have come out supporting it.



Originally posted by -PLB-
So does the video evidence

Really? Because the video evidence shows visible explosions and ejections that have only been seen in controlled demolitions:




And then in this video:

www.youtube.com...

You can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions from almost 2-miles away. And from the video:




And to just corroborate the amount of explosions above from the video:

Firefighter Craig Carlsen, Ladder 8:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down."

So, you have witnesses that corroborate the explosions that are heard 2-miles away down to the number of explosions.



Originally posted by -PLB-
and most of the witnesses.

Yeah, most of the witnesses have described that they saw, heard, and felt the explosions. Most of which were no where near the impact zones or areas of fire.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
My previous post was mostly debunking...

Not really.




Originally posted by -PLB-
Show me a a single piece of evidence of a column from ground zero that was cut or damaged by explosives.

As we don't have the steel columns any more to examine, that will be impossible. But, I will give you an image that has white smoke coming off the ends of steel columns:




Yep, that's white smoke coming off the very ends of two core columns. You know, since the explosives would only have been needed in the core anyway.


So, what you've been provided with thus far is:

* Isolated ejections.
* Corroborating witness testimony.
* Flashes seen going up, down and around the inside of the towers.
* Timed / synchronous booms as both towers collapsed.
* Video evidence of the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions from 2-miles away.
* Images / video of white smoke coming off the very ends of core columns.


All combined together is undeniable proof that the towers were brought down by explosive demolition. Of course, you're free to explain every single piece of evidence away to remain in denial. But it won't make the evidence really go away, nor the implications of what the evidence means.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I challenge you then as well. Show me another building that had a 767 impact it at 500+mph, had fires burn across multiple floors, had a design exactly like the WTC, and survived.

So, in other words, you can't provide what I ask for in my challenge? Gotcha!


There have been numerous examples of steel-structured highrises that have burned across multiple floors and never collapsed. And most steel-structured highrises employ the tube-in-tube design similar to the twin towers.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by r2d246
 


Could you elaborate on what is in the dust? Dust is an extremely general term. If dust refers to plaster, concrete, and fireproofing going into the air, then that makes sense. However, if you are implying that metal was being disintegrated into airborne metal particles, that would be a very strange thing to suggest. Mind elaborating? I'm tired of such general terms.


Concrete dust


The spire was made of steel, not concrete. I have to come to the conclusion that it could not have dustified, because it was metal. So, you may be wondering, 'why did it disappear in a cloud of dust?' Well, there was tons of dust from crushed concrete, fireproofing, etc. It settled on the spire after the collapse, and then when the spire began to fall, the dust went back into the air, obscuring the remainder of the fall. This makes sense to me, so if it doesn't to you, please let me know where my logic is off. Specifics will be greatly helpful.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Just saying



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's because he was only shown the collapse videos. He wasn't show all of the other evidence. And he does, however, believe that there's no doubt that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. Something the official conspiracy crowd still denies to this day.


Right... anyhow, it doesn't count.


Then there's the former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Tom Sullivan, who also agrees that the towers and WTC 7 were brought down with explosives.


So you base your opinion on this one expert? Where are the other 4 I asked for? Or were you not speaking the truth when you said that "There are other experts, many more"?



And for the third time, it's only a flawed line of reasoning in your opinion.


So you think that the Delft building was also taken down with explosives? Or does your line of reasoning (explosions = explosives) not count in this case?

Again: Ignoring my arguments does not make you right. And of course, you ignored my argument again and pretend as if it is not there. So you can still (desperately) hold on to your flawed line of reasoning.






Originally posted by -PLB-Because it's not a fact. It's your opinion again. How many videos of controlled demolitions have you watched? How many years have you researched controlled demolitions? I have videos that have isolated ejections that look and behave exactly like the one's at the WTC.


I don't believe you. But that is easy to fix. Post the video.


So, you're correct in asserting that I'm ignoring your opinion because real research in the real world has proven otherwise.


Real research
. Eagerly awaiting your publication.



And typing your opinions onto a screen doesn't make your right. I'll take the word of the many, many witnesses that were actually there over the words of an anonymous internet personality.


The fact there was a large explosion with another building that collapsed due to fire is not my opinion. It is a fact you call my opinion so you don't have to address it.



Originally posted by -PLB-There's been numerous examples of steel-structured highrises that have had far worse and longer-burning fires. And not only did none of them collapse, almost all of them never even had a localized collapse where the fires were.


How many had airliners crashed into them? Can you show me the evidence that there were no explosions in those buildings?



Depends on which experts you listen to. Remember, there are far more experts that have come out publicly against the official conspiracy theory than have come out supporting it.


There are so many that you listed just one. Must say I didn't do any background check, but I can already tell he does not get support from colleagues.



Originally posted by -PLB-
Really? Because the video evidence shows visible explosions and ejections that have only been seen in controlled demolitions:




Wonder why you keep posting stills. Nah, not really.



And then in this video:

www.youtube.com...

You can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions from almost 2-miles away. And from the video:



We have been over this before. You claimed that the reason that nearby microphones could not register it was because the explosions were too loud. I told you that you don't know anything about this subject (and I do, I have actually designed an automatic gain control amplifier for a microphone).

It is really crazy to ignore the fact that nearby microphones did not record those sounds. But it is actually perfectly in line with the rest of your reasoning.
edit on 24-9-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not really.


In a way your are right. Its selfdebunking.




Originally posted by -PLB-As we don't have the steel columns any more to examine, that will be impossible. But, I will give you an image that has white smoke coming off the ends of steel columns:




Yep, that's white smoke coming off the very ends of two core columns. You know, since the explosives would only have been needed in the core anyway.


What a surprise, you completely ignored my challenge. Why did you do that? Why did you instead posted an image on something different?

And you want others to believe your idea when you can't even meet my very simple challenge?


Anyway, to respond to your unrelated image, why can't the columns come from a part that was on fire (the building was on fire for over an hour remember)? Why can't the white stuff be dust from fireproofing or other sources? Why would explosives cause white smoke? Does any of your controlled demolition videos show something similar? No? Can't be CD then (you logic by the way, the correct line of reasoning would be "no evidence for CD then")



So, what you've been provided with thus far is:

* Isolated ejections.
* Corroborating witness testimony.
* Flashes seen going up, down and around the inside of the towers.
* Timed / synchronous booms as both towers collapsed.
* Video evidence of the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions from 2-miles away.
* Images / video of white smoke coming off the very ends of core columns.


And your assertion that all this is only seen in controlled demolition.

Of course you ignore any explanation that does not involve explosives, and you ignore any argument that debunks explosives (like where are the signs of it in the debris, which on its own is enough to debunk all your nonsense.)


All combined together is undeniable proof that the towers were brought down by explosive demolition. Of course, you're free to explain every single piece of evidence away to remain in denial. But it won't make the evidence really go away, nor the implications of what the evidence means.


Hand waving away any non-explosives explanation does not constitute to "undeniable proof". It constitutes to confirmation bias.
edit on 24-9-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Your entire question is basicaly exactly what I asked you. You demand an answer to an event that has never happened before, as though we have incidents that happened exactly like it.

Have steel structures failed from fire alone? Yes. Windsor Tower's steel failed and the concrete core (unlike WTCs) is the only thing that kept it up. McCormick Place's steel supported roof failed (within 20 minutes no less).

So no, your imagined victory is just that. Imaginary. You didnt win anything other than patting yourself on the head. That is like giving yourself a trophy after only running a few feet in a marathon.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 



The point was how could someone survive from a 20fl fall? There's not a lot of ways that could happen. 1) God intervention. 2) The dust theory. Not sure what other explainations? Maybe if he put himself inside some kind of container that offered him protection. Like a steel cubbard or something. Anything else and he'd be dead for sure. If that's a real story that is.


Cant survive 20 ft falls? Problem is in fire servixce this kind of incident are all too common

Have heard of and know some people who survived 2-3 story falls - usually bailing out of window after
room flashes over

Recently had one here in neighboring city where FF dove out 2 story window when things went south

Our crew was working at that fire - he survived, somewhat banged up

Here is incident in New York where 6 men had to jump out of 4 th floor when fire broke through floor and trapped
them Fell 50 ft

2 died, 4 survived with horrific injuries


On the morning of January 23, 2005, six firefighters jumped out of four fourth-story windows of a tenement at 236 East 178th Street in the Bronx, falling 50 feet to the pavement. Two of them, Curt Meyran and John Bellew, died from their injuries; another four—Gene Stolowski, Brendan Cawley, Joe DiBernardo, and Jeff Cool—barely survived, sustaining massive injuries of their own that left several of them in the hospital for months and effectively ended their careers. Another firefighter, Richard Sclafani, died at an unrelated fire in Brooklyn that same afternoon, making that day the first since 1918 that men had died in two separate incidents in the city; the dual tragedies have come to be known as Black Sunday.


nymag.com...

Heard FF Stolokowski speak about his ordeal

Another incident - Ronald Bucca . He survived 4 story fall and returned to duty as fire marshall.

He died on 9/11 on 78th floor of WTC 2, one of 2 FDNY men who made it to impact zone that day



Ronald Bucca was nicknamed "the Flying Fireman" in 1986 after he fell spectacularly from a tenement fire escape, spun around a cable strung through the backyard and lived to tell the tale. And that was just one of his moments.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


he survived 20 floors not feet that's close to 200 feet

O and to who ever posted that the spire didn't dustify and that it was dust . Metal can be turned to power but it can't fall straight down into nothing. Look at the pics. That spire didn't fall .its gone.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by thedman
 


he survived 20 floors not feet that's close to 200 feet

O and to who ever posted that the spire didn't dustify and that it was dust . Metal can be turned to power but it can't fall straight down into nothing. Look at the pics. That spire didn't fall .its gone.


Let me ask you this. If you pull the bottom card out of a house of cards, how fast does it fall? Does it fall to the side or straight down?

When the spire was standing, it was essentially a house of cards. The connections on it are considerably week when put up to forces of bending and swaying in the wind. Think of it like having a bunch of weights attached to each-other with toothpicks. When they are all properly together, they are strong, but once you allow them to be able to move, the toothpicks snap and the weight comes tumbling down.

In order for it to fall slower, it needed to have greater resistance. It did not.





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join