|
Post by FZ on Aug 18, 2011 19:58:05 GMT -6
NIST edited film's that were newly released earlier this year, is all I'm claiming and it is easily verified.
NO, to all three above. I would assume the fires caused by jet fuel would be the strongest/hottest nearest to where most of the jet fuel was? And the most abundant source of oxygen, the air from the hole where the plane hit?
Since hundred's of millions saw the huge fireballs where the planes impacted, they know most, if not all of the fuel, ignited as the fuel-laden wings smacked into the steel and concrete at 400 +knotts. If there was any fuel left, it would probably be towards the exterior of the building , where the impact ocurred.
Most of the office materials were fire-proof/ fire-resistant according to NYC codes for skyscrapers. Of course the fire would move towards it's oxygen source(the exterior holes punched by the plane) and not towards the interior(oxygen deprived).
Mr Jowenko was murdered in a car crash recently! I guess we won't be able to ask him to clarify his statements? Ok first off, I'll back up and instead of guessing what you mean - could you just answer a few questions to clarify your stance: do you or do you not think the NIST doctored/changed/cherrypicked documents, evidence, or test results in creating the reports? Y/N do you consider the reports a "joke" like you referred to them in an earlier post? Y/N Have you read (any of) the final drafts of the reports? Y/N OK, back on.... I agree with you that you can't tell anything from the pictures above, except its hard to believe someone made it to those points. There's some things we can surmise, but not a lot of hard evidence we can get about the tower as a whole, and the timeline. I also think it would be a good guess the jet fuel was used up in the explosion. NIST addresses this. Windows were blown out all over providing for good drafts also. It's documented the fires moved around the towers, so that might have been the case. blown out windows fueling the fires. I think its plausible fireproofing was damaged or destroyed in the impact....structure wise.. NIST explores these in it's reports. They're in section 5-1A Where I disagree: Mr Jawenko doesn't need to clarify. He's right there in the interviews, and when asked the same question about WTC 1 & 2, he repeated his opinion....You stated earlier you have seen the interviews, so you know this already. That this guys' dead is irrelevant. One final Question then, if I may: Mr Jawenko, Joke? Y/N
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 18, 2011 20:13:55 GMT -6
No on NIST.
I've only seen the first interview did when Jowenko was asked about WTC 7.
Fireproofing is usually sprayed on now-a-days. The Towers had fireproofing done earlier, but it was supposedly in disrepair. The fireproofing was redone more recently on the impacted floors and I don't feel it's possible for a "jolt" from a plane to knock this coating off. It be akin to a sprayed on bedliner coming off in a auto accident.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 19, 2011 6:47:36 GMT -6
No on NIST.
I've only seen the first interview did when Jowenko was asked about WTC 7.
Fireproofing is usually sprayed on now-a-days. The Towers had fireproofing done earlier, but it was supposedly in disrepair. The fireproofing was redone more recently on the impacted floors and I don't feel it's possible for a "jolt" from a plane to knock this coating off. It be akin to a sprayed on bedliner coming off in a auto accident. No you don't think NIST was a joke or no you haven't read it..? I'm going to assume you meant you haven't looked at it. Maybe you can clarify? It is huge - I haven't come close to reading all of it yet, even tho I have several sections downloaded that I went thru. I probably have like 300MB of pdf's it's crazy. There are a series of interviews Mr. Jowenco did. I think the unedited one is in several parts...It's part of the same ones where he is discussing WTC7. I'm not sure I would call the impact of the 767 @ 545mph a little jolt...or compare it to a regular auto accident. Maybe a really bad auto accident at super high speed with a gigantic explosion? If I get time, I might look thru some relevan sections - I read some of the stuff on fireproofing, but don't want to post something from memory and miss/forget something.
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle2006 on Aug 19, 2011 7:05:10 GMT -6
I remember the Section on Fireproofing the could NOT FIND anyof it on the sections that were in the the IMPACT zones. Hell they found next to none of the Fireproofing in the entire Debris pile. Why it was knocked clean offwhen the planes slammed into the building at over 500 MPH. Yes the Structure may have been Fireresustant like the Wallboard and doors. But I have Yet to find an Office chair that is FIRERESISTANT at all. Foam will burn hotter than hell even the stuff that is treated to be flame resistant.
F12 Explain this then if it was not heat and Fire alone that destroyed the Building after the impact why then were all the Trusses that hooked to the Outer beams the Bolt Holes Elongated from fire Not Cut like with Explosives. It was JUST HEAT that strecthed the Beams to the point they became like taffy and then they started to fail. Once one Floor fell the Others COULD not support the REST of the Structure and it was a Systemic Collaspe.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 19, 2011 16:38:00 GMT -6
Well, we can discuss the minutiae of what might have happened to cause the Towers to fall, all day. What remains the most glaring point for me , is watching the collapses from every known angle and believing without a doubt, that jet fuel induced fires COULD NOT HAVE caused the Towers to fall they way they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 17:01:28 GMT -6
Well, we can discuss the minutiae of what might have happened to cause the Towers to fall, all day. What remains the most glaring point for me , is watching the collapses from every known angle and believing without a doubt, that jet fuel induced fires COULD NOT HAVE caused the Towers to fall they way they did. Just like you believe, without a doubt (and w/o good evidence... or any evidence at all that has its basis in provable fact) everything else you believe connected with that sad day in our history. I'd say this last post from you pretty much sums up your arguments, or should I say...lack of arguments. Now you can move on to the Philadelphia Experiment, or Area 51, or the 2012 mass hysteria. Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 19, 2011 17:08:42 GMT -6
None of those interest me. 2012 won't happen and a a biblical man, you know what God says about the date of the end.
Nope, you're stuck with this thread through the 10th anniversary 9/11/11. You don't have to read it Butters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 17:59:30 GMT -6
If you never make another thread about O' bama, then I'll stop the 9/11 posts. Unfortunately, your multitude of threads on Mr O' bama already far exceeds my 1/2 dozen on 9/11. Why don't you drop a note to any Alabama newspaper sports desk and suggest to them how strange it is for them to be writing article after article about Lou Saban. When it comes right down to it f12, you're one ****** ****.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 21, 2011 10:50:18 GMT -6
Well, we can discuss the minutiae of what might have happened to cause the Towers to fall, all day. What remains the most glaring point for me , is watching the collapses from every known angle and believing without a doubt, that jet fuel induced fires COULD NOT HAVE caused the Towers to fall they way they did. This is where I can see your POV. This was an unprecedented event - almost like the twilight zone watching it unfold in real time. After the fact, when we look back and scratch our collective heads at just what the heck happened, it's easy to take one's own biases, limited knowledge, or whatever from our own experiences, and form an opinion. That's human nature the only way to combat that is using discussion, study, and objectivity as weapons to uncover the truth - the real truth, not just some slogan. I guess that's another of my problems with the "Truth" movement. When the ones at the top of the movement have to flat out ignore whats out there, or misrepresent the other side to sell their point, I call BS. They spoon-feed bits and pieces to the believers out there, who gobble it up and then claim its the other side that's getting fed a line of crap... ^ This is a big reason, imho, so many devotees are rabid in the defense of the Truth movement: They have such an emotional investment telling everyone else they are sheeple being led by the nose, the thought of discovering they might be the sheeple scares the bejesus out of them.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 21, 2011 15:52:23 GMT -6
Well, I guess til we have a REAL investigation, without hand-picked members, of which most had conflicting interests or made big money from the events , we will never know the truth.
Several of the 9/11 comissioners have said the report was a joke. If the guys responsible for making the final comission report don't even think it's true/accurate, why should anyone else??
I see Canada is having an investigation coming up, but all the OSer's will mock that also.
Literally hundreds of good questions, still go unanswered to this day.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 23, 2011 7:05:51 GMT -6
Well, I guess til we have a REAL investigation, without hand-picked members, of which most had conflicting interests or made big money from the events , we will never know the truth.
Several of the 9/11 comissioners have said the report was a joke. If the guys responsible for making the final comission report don't even think it's true/accurate, why should anyone else??
I see Canada is having an investigation coming up, but all the OSer's will mock that also.
Literally hundreds of good questions, still go unanswered to this day. I disagree that the extensive, comprehensive, and peer reviewed NIST was anything other then a legit study. Not looking at it and saying its a joke, regardless of your stance, marginalizes your arguments. Some questions may never be answered, that's just the nature of what happened. Then again some of these "good questions" you refer to that need to be answered, are being asked by the same people who believe presidents of the United Sates are really shape shifting lizard people who must drink blood to survive. ;D Really...That's the quality of some of the kooks out there supporting the Truth movement. Put that together with a line of questioning that is mainly rooted in inaccuracy, speculation, and not facts - one has to see why the Truth movement, as a whole, gets largely put on ignore. I think the Truth movement would be better served if they didn't start at the answer and work backwards.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 23, 2011 16:02:32 GMT -6
Sorry for the confusion FZ, as I'm referring to the 9/11 Commission Report.
Most "truthers" don't believe in shape-shifting Reptilians. Lot's of people believe in weird stuff and with the internet, anyone can make stuff up and have a following.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 24, 2011 6:40:02 GMT -6
Lot's of people believe in weird stuff and with the internet, anyone can make stuff up and have a following. I can get on board with that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 24, 2011 16:40:46 GMT -6
FZ, the Times is going to be running a bunch of 9/11 stuff and I asked them I if could write an article/column about 9/11 from a different viewpoint(mine). So far, no response, but if they let me, I'd like you to look it over before I send it to them, to get your opinion and make any suggestions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2011 16:52:23 GMT -6
FZ, the Times is going to be running a bunch of 9/11 stuff and I asked them I if could write an article/column about 9/11 from a different viewpoint(mine). So far, no response, but if they let me, I'd like you to look it over before I send it to them, to get your opinion and make any suggestions. Put it on line and we'll all 'have at it' on SOL before the Times turns it over to the FBI.
|
|