Liability concerns discourage thorough investigation into 9/11

[omegablue]

Are you saying there were explosions above the impact floors? (this is where the people jumped, btw)

I cannot assure you that there were no explosions above the crashing site either. None can. Come on , it was only 10 minutes man. How could the starved fires from the fuel that was mostly probably expelled with that fireballs burn and melt entire floors within that time frame!!

Are you saying the people who jumped were insane?

What makes you think I did say it? Nonsense.

Again, the people who jumped were above the crash site.

Again, it does not matter.

Nobody cares what you think.

Finally an attack! The funniest part.

 

[Arus808]

There were no "starved" fires. There were two big holes in the building. what makes you think the fires were starved?

it does matter why those people jumped

 

[omegablue]

Your the one trotting out dead people with Star Trek metaphors as irrefutable proof. Your the one using examples of building infernos and didn't even realize the building did collapse.

So you are saying that it was exactly the case of WTC? Oh no, I hope you do not.

I-95 bridge fire. It doesn't really compare to the WTC because this was just a tanker fire.

Thanks. Ill take a look.

 

[CHF]

A true inferno was that spanish building that really sustained about 20 hours of pure inferno and which the structure was standing when the fires was off. Face it man, this fuel fire hypothesis is bunk.

The Madrid tower had a concrete core, Omega. The steel structure around the core collapsed, while the concrete stayed up.

Did the WTC have concrete cores? No.

Man, it's so sad when a twoofer shows up who hasn't done his homework and yet insists on pretending he has.

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg

http://i10.tinypic.com/2cntx7p.jpg

Large photos:
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC19.jpg
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC27.jpg

Do you see that orange stuff?

If I may add:

NSFW - people in danger

http://www.poy.org/59/07/photos/0702dallt.jpg
http://mediccom.org/public/tadmat/PHOTO/wtc/sept11/PEOPLE.JPG
http://static.flickr.com/30/42337136_56c56d7e17.jpg

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/September.11.9.2.271465.html

"I'm going to die, aren't I?" Doi asked the dispatcher. "Please God, it's so hot. I'm burning up."

Omega, stop disrespecting these people, you creep.

 

[technoextreme]

So you are saying that it was exactly the case of WTC? Oh no, I hope you do not.

No. Im saying this:

The Madrid tower had a concrete core, Omega. The steel part collapses, the concrete stayed up.

Man, it's so sad when a twoofer shows up who hasn't done his homework and yet insists on pretending he has.

 

[omegablue]

All of which, specific, "professionals", OMGblue? You were asked this already, so I'm just repeating it.

Elvin Jones?

Lol, perhaps Evil Jones for a few.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

 

[omegablue]

No. Im saying this:

Hmm I saw just the steel frame kind of intact with a crane on the top of it. Its true that part of the steel frame came down, but not the building.

 

[omegablue]

WOW, you are a trully stupid person that has no idea who Frank DeMartini was, do you?

Yes, so im this stupid, now tell me smart one, who he was!

 

[CHF]

Hmm I saw just the steel frame kind of intact with a crane on the top of it. Its true that part of the steel frame came down, but not the building.

Right. Because it had a concrete core.
The WTC did not. Thus it collapsed while the Madrid tower didn't.

 

[Arus808]

its called Google, Omega. you may want to put at least a little effort on your part.

 

[Skibum]

its called Google, Omega. you may want to put at least a little effort on your part.

Aw c'mon, watching brainwashing videos on youtube has got to count for some effort. After all '9/11 was an inside job' just doesn't magically type itself into the search box.

 

[omegablue]

It happens more often than you might think.

April 2007 Oakland tanker fire


March 2004 Connecticut tanker fire

There are more, but that should get you started.

The lingering question is if these cases can be compared to the wtc. A bridge is known to be horizontal isnt it? How could it sustain a simple loss of strength or even some buckling and faiiling caused by fire? Let us suppose WTC´s fires could in 10 minutes melt steel. Would the entire structure of the WTC go down near free fall speed because there were some buckling and melting on some floors near the top? Do not forget that the core was strong in the base, and weakening progressively to the top as to form a true and strong base support. So the weight of the upper floors meant progressively nothing to the floors below.

Another point, check for how long did the fire burn for these bridges to go down. Thats important as long as we have WTC complete pulverized in 10 minutes after the crash.

 

[Pardalis]

I cannot assure you that there were no explosions above the crashing site either. None can. Come on , it was only 10 minutes man. How could the starved fires from the fuel that was mostly probably expelled with that fireballs burn and melt entire floors within that time frame!!

Thats important as long as we have WTC complete pulverized in 10 minutes after the crash.

The towers fell an hour after the plane hits.

 

[omegablue]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i10.tinypic.com/2cntx7p.jpg[/qimg]

Large photos:
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC19.jpg
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC27.jpg

Do you see that orange stuff?

All these photos are just made up!!! This is the new world order!!! I can do it on photoshop also.

JK, Serious, ok, let us suppose this fire was responsible for in 10 minutes, let some structures and trusses fail. Would it be responsible for pankaking the building like that near free fall speed? The structure below was intact, and the core, where it is stronger, was intact. So what the hell happened there. According to your inferno theory, only the damaged part would fall, not the entire building. We could see it from that building on Madrid. Yet Madrid´s one burnt fro waaaaaaaay longer with stronger fires.

 

[Pardalis]

JK, Serious, ok, let us suppose this fire was responsible for in 10 minutes,

Again, the fires lasted an hour.

 

[AZCat]

The lingering question is if these cases can be compared to the wtc. A bridge is known to be horizontal isnt it? How could it sustain a simple loss of strength or even some buckling and faiiling caused by fire? Let us suppose WTC´s fires could in 10 minutes melt steel. Would the entire structure of the WTC go down near free fall speed because there were some buckling and melting on some floors near the top? Do not forget that the core was strong in the base, and weakening progressively to the top as to form a true and strong base support. So the weight of the upper floors meant progressively nothing to the floors below.

Another point, check for how long did the fire burn for these bridges to go down. Thats important as long as we have WTC complete pulverized in 10 minutes after the crash.

1) Nobody is claiming that the fires in the WTC towers melted steel.

2) The "entire structure of the WTC" didn't fall at "near free fall speed".

3) If you are serious about investigating this, there are a number of threads here already that discuss the collapses, along with links to a number of articles written by qualified experts (including JREF member Apollo20, a.k.a. Dr. Frank Greening).

 

[CHF]

JK, Serious, ok, let us suppose this fire was responsible for in 10 minutes, let some structures and trusses fail. Would it be responsible for pankaking the building like that near free fall speed?

Omega: the top portion of the WTC towers above the collapse zone (ie. the blocks that came crashing down)....

what did those top portions weigh? Any idea?

 

[Skibum]

A bridge is known to be horizontal isnt it?

Horizontal, yes. Just like the trusses of the WTC which when heated sagged and lead to the overall failure of the building.

How could it sustain a simple loss of strength or even some buckling and faiiling caused by fire?

Because heat weakens steel.

Let us suppose WTC´s fires could in 10 minutes melt steel.

Why, it wasn't necessary to melt the steel just weaken it enough to cause collapse.

Would the entire structure of the WTC go down near free fall speed because there were some buckling and melting on some floors near the top?

Yup. Though not at the "near freefall speed" you claim, whatever that may be.

Thats important as long as we have WTC complete pulverized in 10 minutes after the crash.

You really haven't done any research at all have you.

 

[omegablue]

Woops a quick correction, it was indeed 1 hour. But still we have to check if it would be responsible to bring down that massive well done structure of steel. If the Madrid building did not collapse (no t did not) after much more time, why did WTC do? Another point was the speed of the falling. The classical case of implosion. If it would be the case, the section above the accident had to fall apart and the rest should be kind of intact, as much as possible.