Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

[Blaupunkt69]

Pretty sure, Bill has left the building!

Aww but why? His building had only two isolated pockets of fact and they was enough for him to evacuate?

 

[thebicyclist]

Pretty sure, Bill has left the building!

My bad, but very amusing the WTF Dusty is still pushing the same ignorance

 

[WTC Dust]

Those were obviously the biggest fires in the towers, right?

The commonly agreed upon STORY is that the WTC was suffering from fires. I'm telling you otherwise.

 

[WTC Dust]

Chief Orio Palmer's transmission:

"We've got two ISOLATED pockets of fire."

He also said:

"We're gonna need TWO ENGINES up here."

That's a decent amount of manpower for two "small" pockets of fire.

isolated pockets, there you go
these men are trained communicators
they need to relay precise environmental conditions
to the dispatcher

"isolated pockets" must mean exactly that
not "widespread areas"
"isolated pockets"
and only 2 of them

not much of a fire, eh?

 

[WTC Dust]

This is one of the most hilarious of the CT memes. We get one crew that manages to get up to the lowest fire involved floor or either tower where he reports, a few minutes before collapse, that this level (did I mention its the lowest fire floor) has a few fires (and btw lots of dead and injured people.) that can be suppressed with a few water lines(which he doesn't have and won't get)

Why is this hilarious?

 

[WTC Dust]

Ok, sad, enraging, or the less emotional, blatant sophistry, would be better than finding hilarity in the idea of there being dead people involved.

Its a notion that simply makes me shake my head in disbelief that anyone could twist those words into the idea that there were only small fires in the towers.

Could we not expect, even though he does not specify it, that in addition to those who died, there would be those who were injured and unable to leave under their own power due to those injuries?

My assertion that fires weren't widespread at the WTC comes from many different angles and many different lines of evidence.

This audio barely rises to the surface as even important, let alone the most obvious reason the WTC wasn't suffering from devastating fires.

But he did say that there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. Unless you are asserting that this is fake audio, and I don't think you are. This audio is consistent with the other evidence that points to the lack of fire at the WTC.

To be specific, what was missing at the WTC was a "hydrocarbon fire". There might have been some kind of fire going on, but it wasn't a hydrocarbon fire. For one thing, there wasn't that much hydrocarbon inside the building to sustain a very big fire, and concrete really doesn't do it as a fuel source and is not a hydrocarbon, anyway.

Plastic, wood, paper, carpets, rubber, what else was there to burn inside the WTC? And OOOPS the paper didn't burn. It's almost laughable to think that a steel building was destroyed by a hydrocarbon fire, when the paper didn't burn. It's the Three Little Pigs written by Dali.

 

[Dash80]

The commonly agreed upon STORY is that the WTC was suffering from fires. I'm telling you otherwise.

You're telling me lies.

isolated pockets, there you go
these men are trained communicators
they need to relay precise environmental conditions
to the dispatcher

"isolated pockets" must mean exactly that
not "widespread areas"
"isolated pockets"
and only 2 of them

not much of a fire, eh?

No, not on the 78th floor. What about the floors above that Chief Palmer could not see?

 

[Dog Town]

And OOOPS the paper didn't burn. It's almost laughable to think that a steel building was destroyed by a hydrocarbon fire, when the paper didn't burn...

This has to be a parody! This can't be a real argument!

 

[WTC Dust]

How about this broken bicycle part? The 19mm diameter steel spindle failed not the riders foot or leg, not the aluminium cranks nor the aluminium pedals.

Do you the the rider should have a broken leg? or perhaps that the aluminium cranks should have sheared first?

[qimg]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MEqOwX55c_I/UVTLl22SxkI/AAAAAAAAAOw/_1yIFNffS0A/w753-h762-p-o-k/Snapped_TH_Industries_BB.jpg[/qimg]

Not relevant. YOU PEOPLE are saying that an airplane crashed into
the south face of WTC 2. NOT ME. I'm not the one claiming that
an airplane crashed there. I'm pointing out that none of the videos
of this event depict any plane debris bouncing off the south
face of WTC 2.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Show me a video of 9:59AM on 9/11/2001
that shows some plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
I don't want to go around with this assertion if I am wrong, but at this
point, I don't think I am. No one has ever found any video that
shows plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

No debris? No collision.
When you look inside the hole? No plane.

 

[WTC Dust]

If they're trained to investigate fires, then I'd reckon they know what fires tend to smell like. Consequently, they should know better than you if the smell of ground zero was not easily explained by the fire and subsequent collapse of the towers.

But maybe you're right. Maybe persons trained in biomedical sciences are uniquely qualified in identifying mysterious foamification of tall buildings. Sure. Why not?

If what I'm saying is correct, who would be someone uniquely qualified to put forth the results that the WTC complex was turned almost entirely into metallic foam at low temperature.

I mean, which scientific specialty suits this conclusion the best? I say materials science, because the WTC dust is completely new material.

 

[WTC Dust]

They most likely had hoses, It is standard practice to take them in . I seriously doubt though that they would have been able to use them since the standpipes were most likely damaged and there wouldnt be much if any water pressure.

Why didn't these "fires" go out after 27 days of rain during the first 100 days post attack? Why was it still fuming one full year later?

 

[Dash80]

Not relevant. YOU PEOPLE are saying that an airplane crashed into
the south face of WTC 2. NOT ME. I'm not the one claiming that
an airplane crashed there. I'm pointing out that none of the videos
of this event depict any plane debris bouncing off the south
face of WTC 2.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Show me a video of 9:59AM on 9/11/2001
that shows some plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
I don't want to go around with this assertion if I am wrong, but at this
point, I don't think I am. No one has ever found any video that
shows plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

No debris? No collision.
When you look inside the hole? No plane.

You really do think the plane should have been sticking out the hole like a dart?

It was shredded to bits still moving forward at 500+ mph!

 

[Dash80]

Why didn't these "fires" go out after 27 days of rain during the first 100 days post attack? Why was it still fuming one full year later?

Wind blowing dust around, not fumes.

 

[twinstead]

Why didn't these "fires" go out after 27 days of rain during the first 100 days post attack? Why was it still fuming one full year later?

Why is there a coal fire in Australia that has been burning for thousands of years? You know why it was still fuming one full year later? Because it holds a grudge. I'd be fuming too!

It had to be said.

 

[Skibum]

To be specific, what was missing at the WTC was a "hydrocarbon fire". There might have been some kind of fire going on, but it wasn't a hydrocarbon fire.

I think you are on to something. Perhaps the massive fire was caused by the chemicals they use to create the chemtrails. We don't know what those chemical are, perhaps they turn steel into foam. Keep up the good work.

 

[phiwum]

If what I'm saying is correct, who would be someone uniquely qualified to put forth the results that the WTC complex was turned almost entirely into metallic foam at low temperature.

I mean, which scientific specialty suits this conclusion the best? I say materials science, because the WTC dust is completely new material.

My point is that you keep referring to the fact that the scene didn't smell right to you. Persons who are trained and have experience in dealing with fires and other disasters have raised no similar issues. I presume this is because these experts did not find the smell suspicious.

Surely, forensics and fire investigation experts would have been better suited to determine whether the smell was suspicious or unexpected.

 

[swright777]

If what I'm saying is correct,
<snip>

It's not.

 

[swright777]

Wind blowing dust around, not fumes.

This has been pointed out to her several times already. I guess it's fringe reset time.

 

[swright777]

The house that I grew up in burned down in 1980. The only things left were the foundation and the brick walls in the basement. It was rebuilt, and my parents still live there. You can still smell the odors left over from the fire in some parts of the basement almost 33 years later.

Must be a conspiracy!!1!1!

 

[Sunstealer]

If what I'm saying is correct, who would be someone uniquely qualified to put forth the results that the WTC complex was turned almost entirely into metallic foam at low temperature.

I mean, which scientific specialty suits this conclusion the best? I say materials science, because the WTC dust is completely new material.

You would be correct, but you have zero understanding of materials science. And I mean zero. I on the other hand have a degree in metallurgy and materials engineering and work as a materials engineer in the aerospace industry.

I can categorically tell you now that you do not have a new material at all and that everything you have said on this topic is completely wrong.

You have shown absolutely no analysis of the material you recovered because you haven't performed any analysis. You haven't even managed to do any basic image analysis let alone any in depth work.

You are here for the attention, which is sad.