View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: Fires round the twin tower collapses |
|
|
Did any other buildings in the proximity of the twin towers, apart from the WTC complex buildings, suffer fires? I don't recall any. Why was the WTC complex so flamable? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're missing my point, I'm asking whether buildings adjacent to the twin towers caught fire, not just WTC1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
On "9/11 Martial Law" Alex Jones did mention a non-WTC building that had caught fire but, mysteriously, had been put out and remained standing.
From about 50 minutes in I think. _________________ Currently working on a new website |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bongo 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 687
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would second SHERITON's question.
I have seen the way the cars, buses etc (located around the site), were completely burned out, but have not seen much on the possible cause of this (apart from videos where news reporters state witnessing fire balls etc)... Oh and that video of the huge bang and a fireman saying; "we need to get outa here... 7's exploding"
What i'm basically trying to say is that since there was no gas network in most of these buildings (due to their Class A fire rating), how did falling rubble cause other buildings to catch fire? even when we look at the cars, they are not seriously physically damaged by falling rubble (ie being crushed under the rubble and the fuel tanks exploding!)... they are simply burned out, but otherwise intact! I guess a similar principle could be investigated regarding the building fires?
Is it not a possibility that the fires (both buildings and transport) could only have been caused by 'a forced ignition' (I dont want to just assume explosives here as someone may have other reasons that I have not considered!) and that there is certainly much more research required into this issue?
I think these 'secondary' (ie other than the 3 buildings collapses) events have been touched on, but I honestly believe there is a whole lot of issues there which we still have not fully investigated and that they could prove to be considerably more important than we might currently understand.
Regards,
Bongo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|