Fire, steel, and 911.

[gumboot]

Ooh Jezus Christ. Not that 'two isolated pockets of fire' troofer bull ◊◊◊◊ again.

Yes I heard that too. But I stopped the video shortly after I heard Alex Jones' voice.

-Gumboot

 

[Crungy]

That's actually a fireman saying someone ELSE told them there was an explosion on 7-8 (floor 78).

Now this could be one of four things:

1 - WTC2, in which case 78 is in the impact zone

78 is also a mechanical floor housing many things that could go boom!

 

[Bell]

 

[Spins]

Have you done any independent research...or do you blindly adhere to the garbage that the NIST feeds you? You know garbage theories...that have no actual bases in reality. No physical evidence...just some entangled words...strewn together, which can probably be interpreted in many different ways...why haven't they taken the time to create a visual simulation or animation so that we can actually see what the heck they're talking about. That would help things a lot. But, I guess they're too afraid of that...since it would look utterly ridiculous.

Yes of course we are all gullible fools because we don't believe in your paranoid, delusional, tin-foil covered theories!

Anyways regarding your comments above about NIST I'm sorry but once again you really have no clue what you are talking about. NIST didn't just sit in front of their computers for 3 years watching 9/11 conspiracy videos on youtube and prisonplanet you know...

Gallery of WTC Fire Experiment Images...
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

Gallery of Recovered World Trade Center Steel at NIST (etc)...
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

Links to video B-roll and computer simulated animations for WTC investigation...
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm

NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; established baseline performance of the WTC towers; performed computer simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001; combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence for each tower; conducted nearly 1,200 first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; and analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in the two high-rise buildings.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-4index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations...
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-8index.htm


28th Kingdom why don't you just say that you have a Martian living in your bedroom, sir! Why don't you just say that, and parade a puppet out or something!

 

[28th Kingdom]

Hey, I've got a nice little treat for everyone. Since, you want to try and discredit my sources and "expert," accounts. Have a looky here:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

This article is from Fire Engineering Magazine..the oldest publication in the US on said field of EXPERTISE!! That's a nice article to read. But, hey I thought all the experts were siding with NIST and the government? You say...well, why doesn't anyone spoken out and questioned the, "official theory," man, they have...and they've been doing it for years. Just because you don't see it on the tele doesn't mean it's not there.

So what do you have to say about this report? Are you calling these EXPERTS liars? Why would the government literally COVER UP CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE for one of the LARGEST mass murderings in US history? Why would they cover up the evidence if they weren't somehow involved? Any answers? Or will you just retreat back to your comfortable and convenient fortress of name calling...where you can be protected from this PAINFUL truth.

 

[maccy]

Hey, I've got a nice little treat for everyone. Since, you want to try and discredit my sources and "expert," accounts. Have a looky here:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

This article is from Fire Engineering Magazine..the oldest publication in the US on said field of EXPERTISE!! That's a nice article to read. But, hey I thought all the experts were siding with NIST and the government? You say...well, why doesn't anyone spoken out and questioned the, "official theory," man, they have...and they've been doing it for years. Just because you don't see it on the tele doesn't mean it's not there.

So what do you have to say about this report? Are you calling these EXPERTS liars? Why would the government literally COVER UP CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE for one of the LARGEST mass murderings in US history? Why would they cover up the evidence if they weren't somehow involved? Any answers? Or will you just retreat back to your comfortable and convenient fortress of name calling...where you can be protected from this PAINFUL truth.

That article was published in January 2002. Can you find something form after the publication of the NIST report that takes issue with its conclusions?

 

[Bell]

Hey, I've got a nice little treat for everyone. Since, you want to try and discredit my sources and "expert," accounts. Have a looky here:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

This article is from Fire Engineering Magazine..the oldest publication in the US on said field of EXPERTISE!! That's a nice article to read. But, hey I thought all the experts were siding with NIST and the government? You say...well, why doesn't anyone spoken out and questioned the, "official theory," man, they have...and they've been doing it for years. Just because you don't see it on the tele doesn't mean it's not there.

So what do you have to say about this report? Are you calling these EXPERTS liars? Why would the government literally COVER UP CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE for one of the LARGEST mass murderings in US history? Why would they cover up the evidence if they weren't somehow involved? Any answers? Or will you just retreat back to your comfortable and convenient fortress of name calling...where you can be protected from this PAINFUL truth.

Did you note the date of that article? Of course you didn't

 

[28th Kingdom]

Links to video B-roll and computer simulated animations for WTC investigation...
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm

And, where's the animation that shows fires down on the 7th and 8th floors...or anywhere well below the crash points? And they went through all this trouble, but why didn't they have an animation that shows the total collapse of the buildings according to their crazy theory? I wonder why. Gee, it seems logical that they would have a simulation for that. Kind of important don't you think. But, naw...they just want to OVERANAYLZE and inundate you with all kind of bloated industry jargon and conjectures....and let's be honest...that's all they are ...mere conjectures, because without the evidence at the crime scene that the government so conveniently hauled off...NIST's report will FOREVER remain nothing more than a THEORY!

 

[28th Kingdom]

Did you note the date of that article? Of course you didn't

Is everyone starting to see how weak the NISTers case is? Thanks for pointing this out. The article was released on: Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002

YOU KNOW...just months after the "attacks"...a TIME...if you remember, where if ANYONE and I MEAN ANYONE so much as SAID anything negative about the GOVERNMENT (including just questioning their actions) they were LABELED a TRAITOR or TERRORIST. God Bless these heros for having the guts and integrity to stand up to the system. And, thanks to Bell....for making my point all the more valuable.

 

[Bell]

And, where's the animation that shows fires down on the 7th and 8th floors...or anywhere well below the crash points? And they went through all this trouble, but why didn't they have an animation that shows the total collapse of the buildings according to their crazy theory? I wonder why. Gee, it seems logical that they would have a simulation for that. Kind of important don't you think. But, naw...they just want to OVERANAYLZE and inundate you with all kind of bloated industry jargon and conjectures....and let's be honest...that's all they are ...mere conjectures, because without the evidence at the crime scene that the government so conveniently hauled off...NIST's report will FOREVER remain nothing more than a THEORY!

Source for fires on the 7th and 8th floor? Surely you wouldn't be so stupid as to mistake the quote about explosions on floor 7-8 (78th floor)?

 

[Bell]

Is everyone starting to see how weak the NISTers case is? Thanks for pointing this out. The article was released on: Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002

YOU KNOW...just months after the "attacks"...a TIME...if you remember, where if ANYONE and I MEAN ANYONE so much as SAID anything negative about the GOVERNMENT (including just questioning their actions) they were LABELED a TRAITOR or TERRORIST. God Bless these heros for having the guts and integrity to stand up to the system. And, thanks to Bell....for making my point all the more valuable.

And long before the 9/11 Commission and NIST came out with their reports. What the hell kind of point are you trying to make here anyway? That the editor doesn't agree with the explaination of the collapse, or that he is asking for a thorough investigation (which, as you may have noted, was conducted)? Make yourself clear, man.

 

[28th Kingdom]

That article was published in January 2002. Can you find something form after the publication of the NIST report that takes issue with its conclusions?

What's the official publication date of the NIST report? And thanks to people like you...who are actually engaging in a conversation as oppose to trying to dismiss me...with immature name calling.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And long before the 9/11 Commission and NIST came out with their reports. What the hell kind of point are you trying to make here anyway? That the editor doesn't agree with the explaination of the collapse, or that he is asking for a thorough investigation (which, as you may have noted, was conducted)? Make yourself clear, man.

Sometimes it's hard to talk with cotton mouth:

 

[Spins]

And, where's the animation that shows fires down on the 7th and 8th floors...or anywhere well below the crash points? And they went through all this trouble, but why didn't they have an animation that shows the total collapse of the buildings according to their crazy theory? I wonder why. Gee, it seems logical that they would have a simulation for that. Kind of important don't you think. But, naw...they just want to OVERANAYLZE and inundate you with all kind of bloated industry jargon and conjectures....and let's be honest...that's all they are ...mere conjectures, because without the evidence at the crime scene that the government so conveniently hauled off...NIST's report will FOREVER remain nothing more than a THEORY!

NIST never simulated the global collapse, only the events that lead up to the collapse.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

28th Kingdom is this not your idea of a thorough investigation, if so what is? Also do you think all 200 technical experts are lying, if not why have they come to the conclusions they have after a thorough 3 year investigation?

 

[Dazed]

If you reverse the sequence of these two images Bell Posted, so that they're in chronological order:

The fire is considerably less raging just 45 minutes later.

Seems like the fire was decreasing in intensity and the peak event was some time earlier.

Let me phrase this question in an analogous way. If holding a blow torch to a beam doesn't make it fail, why should putting away the torch and using a match cause failure?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Source for fires on the 7th and 8th floor? Surely you wouldn't be so stupid as to mistake the quote about explosions on floor 7-8 (78th floor)?

No, I actually present actual video and audio evidence....that people like to dismiss because YOUTUBE said it.

NISTer: "I'm suppose to listen to what Youtube says? So, you think that Youtube knows more about structural damage than NIST?" *Speechless*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you reverse the sequence of these two images Bell Posted, so that they're in chronological order:

<snip>

The fire is considerably less raging just 45 minutes later.

Seems like the fire was decreasing in intensity and the peak event was some time earlier.

Let me phrase this question in an analogous way. If holding a blow torch to a beam doesn't make it fail, why should putting away the torch and using a match cause failure?

You are making unsubstantiated assumptions. All that can be said from those two pics is that the pic at ~9:14 has more externally visible flames than the pic at ~9:58.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Here is the quote in context btw.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

You are sooooo intellectually dishonest. Did you actually think that no one here would read the article?

 

[28th Kingdom]

If you reverse the sequence of these two images Bell Posted, so that they're in chronological order:

Seems like the fire was decreasing in intensity and the peak event was some time earlier.

Let me phrase this question in an analogous way. If holding a blow torch to a beam doesn't make it fail, why should putting away the torch and using a match cause failure?

Dazed...I thought you are an NISTer? I like the point you made...but which side are you on?

 

[Bell]

No, I actually present actual video and audio evidence....that people like to dismiss because YOUTUBE said it.

NISTer: "I'm suppose to listen to what Youtube says? So, you think that Youtube knows more about structural damage than NIST?" *Speechless*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

To which I replied:

Source for fires on the 7th and 8th floor? Surely you wouldn't be so stupid as to mistake the quote about explosions on floor 7-8 (78th floor)?