| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: Explosions = bombs? (2) |
 |
|
"A MASSIVE fire and series of explosions destroyed a block of flats in Hatfield.
An entire street was evacuated as 100ft flames ripped through the 84 new homes, which were unoccupied, just after 5pm on Saturday.
Early indications are that it was not arson.
Eyewitnesses at the scene told the WHT that four loud explosions were heard before the timber structure on Lemsford Road was engulfed."
Source |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
very intresting, i suppose that proves it then?, i mean its obvious most fires have explosions, and that people hear explosions, but do you have any idea if squibs and flashes were seen also as the building collapsed followed by dust clouds, was the collapse floor by floor and all at once around all 4 sides? theres far more information needed.
take notice of the witness statements do any contridict on a vast scale? do first responders contridict the reports?
if not then theres nothing suspicous and certainly no reason to suspect CD.
it was more than likely a gas explosion with it being homes involved(leak?) and you know what bricks and mortar are like don't you?(much weaker than steel skyscrappers with steel core beams)
theres also been a hotel fire in newquay, maybe we should look at that one to? again bricks and mortar. no reports of explosions so far(but its early yet) its been burning a while and the front of the building is still standing but has mainly collapsed although this was a long drawn out gradual process of partial collapses as it was burning, nothing suspicous, just your usual fire.
there was also a shed fire last year, though im not sure on all the details
but it has contact numbers if you need more information.
http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/fbnews/info/details.asp?ID=4332 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | very intresting, i suppose that proves it then?, i mean its obvious most fires have explosions |
Yes, as we've been saying for years.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | very intresting, i suppose that proves it then?, i mean its obvious most fires have explosions |
Yes, as we've been saying for years. |
in your opinon, should this building collapse?
badly damaged on 9/11, it catches fire years later still weakened and dos'nt even look like collapsing, burns for several hours(fireproofing only lasts a few 2-3). no mention of a need to 'pull it' or the firemen.
your opinon here would be helpful, why would this building stay standing but not wtc7?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/190807Building.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I explained why at most two days ago.
Fires can cause structures to collapse. All fires do not always cause all structures to collapse. Even on 911 at ground zero, all buildings that caught fire did not collapse. So what's the problem?
Is this so hard? I mean read the sneering bs at Prisonplanet "This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours."
Go to an engineering school, or a fire department. Ask them if fire can cause steel structures to fail. Its been years, what are you waiting for?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I explained why at most two days ago.
Fires can cause structures to collapse. All fires do not always cause all structures to collapse. Even on 911 at ground zero, all buildings that caught fire did not collapse. So what's the problem?
Is this so hard? I mean read the sneering bs at Prisonplanet "This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours."
Go to an engineering school, or a fire department. Ask them if fire can cause steel structures to fail. Its been years, what are you waiting for? |
you make it sound like it happens all the time, but it has not where steel skyscrappers are concerned, and any that have had partial collapses were burning for vast amounts of hours not 1 or 2 but overall did not collapse to the ground even after burning for days in some cases.
you say go and check this or that, like i have not, but i have, and i cannot find any other examples of steel skyscrappers collapsing globally after an hour or 2 anywhere for anyone to even think it should be expected other than results of earthquakes and CD.
most buildings don't even collapse after such a short time from fire and thats before you get to much stronger steel structures, infact i'd go as far as saying some wooden structures have lasted longer than the towers, before total collapse.
people lie, history does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
boats had a history of sinking before the titanic, wheres the history of steel skyscrappers collapsing due to fire other than the day in question?
if boats had never sunk then they made a stronger version of one and it did sink, then im sure there would of been people asking questions back when the titanic sunk, especially if the story dos'nt add up or great lenghts are taken to not answer questions or do proper investigastions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | you make it sound like it happens all the time, but it has not where steel skyscrappers are concerned, and any that have had partial collapses were burning for vast amounts of hours not 1 or 2 but overall did not collapse to the ground even after burning for days in some cases. |
How many of them were hit by 757s? | Quote: | | you say go and check this or that, like i have not, but i have |
Really? So you went and spoke to some engineers and firefighters rather than just relying on conspiracy websites?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have gone round the mulberry bush many times on this one! The towers did not collapse due to fire, they collapsed due to being very severely damaged by the plane impacts, and then catching fire. They were photographed distorting badly before collapsing. WTC7 was also severely damaged as well as on fire for seven hours with no attempt made to extinguish it, and was expected to collapse before it did. It is as true to say that every single skyscraper that has had a fully loaded jet crashed into it at high speed and caught fire has collapsed, and every single skyscraper that has had a 100 storey building fall on it and burnt unattended has collapsed, as to say that no previous skyscraper has collapsed due to fire.
The point of this thread is to emphasis once again that loud explosions are commonplace in fires, not something extraordinary that probably indicates bombs going off. Most people know that, but it does not prevent the explosions on 9/11 being cited again and again by troofers as some sort of evidence of CD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The point of this thread is to emphasis once again that loud explosions are commonplace in fires, not something extraordinary that probably indicates bombs going off. Most people know that, but it does not prevent the explosions on 9/11 being cited again and again by troofers as some sort of evidence of CD. |
Please point out the fires below floor 80 or so of the twin towers - then please examine the explosions witnessed by people on the lower floors. Things explode in fires - not by being roughly adjacent ....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The point of this thread is to emphasis once again that loud explosions are commonplace in fires, not something extraordinary that probably indicates bombs going off. Most people know that, but it does not prevent the explosions on 9/11 being cited again and again by troofers as some sort of evidence of CD. |
Please point out the fires below floor 80 or so of the twin towers - then please examine the explosions witnessed by people on the lower floors. Things explode in fires - not by being roughly adjacent ....... |
Apart from William Rodriguez, which witnesses are you referring to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The point of this thread is to emphasis once again that loud explosions are commonplace in fires, not something extraordinary that probably indicates bombs going off. Most people know that, but it does not prevent the explosions on 9/11 being cited again and again by troofers as some sort of evidence of CD. |
Please point out the fires below floor 80 or so of the twin towers - then please examine the explosions witnessed by people on the lower floors. Things explode in fires - not by being roughly adjacent ....... |
Apart from William Rodriguez, which witnesses are you referring to? |
All the eye-witnesses who reported explosions in the time between the plane strikes and tower collapses. Lower floors means any floors below the fires, where explosions might be deemed "surprising".
Here's a few I found here :- http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm
| Quote: | Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?” After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these b****** put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”
Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: “I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions.” |
There's also the well-known TV interviews outside the towers of survivors describing explosions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The point of this thread is to emphasis once again that loud explosions are commonplace in fires, not something extraordinary that probably indicates bombs going off. Most people know that, but it does not prevent the explosions on 9/11 being cited again and again by troofers as some sort of evidence of CD. |
Please point out the fires below floor 80 or so of the twin towers - then please examine the explosions witnessed by people on the lower floors. Things explode in fires - not by being roughly adjacent ....... |
Apart from William Rodriguez, which witnesses are you referring to? |
All the eye-witnesses who reported explosions in the time between the plane strikes and tower collapses. Lower floors means any floors below the fires, where explosions might be deemed "surprising".
Here's a few I found here :- http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm
| Quote: | Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?” After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these * put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”
Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: “I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions.” |
There's also the well-known TV interviews outside the towers of survivors describing explosions. |
See the other thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! I like the graphic though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | stelios, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! I like the graphic though. |
yet their all witnessed and seen or true.
maybe you'd like to clarify on each point?
for example "almost entire mass landed outside building footprint"
ive heard you saying something like that yourself when you rant at people about the buildings NOT falling into their own footprint.
also which part of the steel core survived intact? etc etc.
any chance of clarifying on each point in the image?
its not very convincing when someone gives information and you just say its a lie etc, specific points why each point is wrong would help people, even if i don't agree with your answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | stelios, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! I like the graphic though. |
yet their all witnessed and seen or true.
maybe you'd like to clarify on each point?
for example "almost entire mass landed outside building footprint"
ive heard you saying something like that yourself when you rant at people about the buildings NOT falling into their own footprint.
also which part of the steel core survived intact? etc etc.
any chance of clarifying on each point in the image?
its not very convincing when someone gives information and you just say its a lie etc, specific points why each point is wrong would help people, even if i don't agree with your answers. |
You truthers need to decide whether the buildings fell into their own footprints or outside their own footprints, and which better shows that it was controlled demolition!
You really expect me to devote a great deal of effort into going through all these statements which are mere headlines on the image that stelios has cut and pasted?
Perhaps instead I will just post 911 myths and challenge you and stelios to refute it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | stelios, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! I like the graphic though. |
yet their all witnessed and seen or true.
maybe you'd like to clarify on each point?
for example "almost entire mass landed outside building footprint"
ive heard you saying something like that yourself when you rant at people about the buildings NOT falling into their own footprint.
also which part of the steel core survived intact? etc etc.
any chance of clarifying on each point in the image?
its not very convincing when someone gives information and you just say its a lie etc, specific points why each point is wrong would help people, even if i don't agree with your answers. |
You truthers need to decide whether the buildings fell into their own footprints or outside their own footprints, and which better shows that it was controlled demolition!
You really expect me to devote a great deal of effort into going through all these statements which are mere headlines on the image that stelios has cut and pasted?
Perhaps instead I will just post 911 myths and challenge you and stelios to refute it all. |
or i could just repeat your rant without any clarification.
bushwacker, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! I like the look of the website though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
however to clarify my postion on footprints, wtc7 was almost all inside
wtc1 and 2 was mostly outside, although i agree i do hear some make the mistake of saying wtc1 and 2 fell into their own footprint, yet its obvious it did'nt when you watch any clip of it.
then you get the arguement well if wtc1 and 2 were CD how come they did'nt fall into their own footprint? answer: wtc1 and 2 if they were CD were top down not bottom up, wtc7 was bottom up not top down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always had a problem with the term "controlled demolition" when applied to the towers - much better to call it just a demolition, the building was destroyed.
NIST use this tactic to deny that it was a controlled demolition in their notorious FAQ. That is, CD collapses from the bottom, towers collapsed from the top, therefore it was not a CD.
Then they have more questions about explosions which they then refer to the above statement, pointing out that it couldn't have been a CD etc etc.
Nothing compares to their response to the question about the molten metal though.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | I've always had a problem with the term "controlled demolition" when applied to the towers - much better to call it just a demolition, the building was destroyed.
NIST use this tactic to deny that it was a controlled demolition in their notorious FAQ. That is, CD collapses from the bottom, towers collapsed from the top, therefore it was not a CD.
Then they have more questions about explosions which they then refer to the above statement, pointing out that it couldn't have been a CD etc etc.
Nothing compares to their response to the question about the molten metal though.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." |
point noted, and your right.
a CD is a building took down with minimal explosives in key area's and gravity does the rest.
if explosive were used in the twins it was just to destroy the building but was also working against gravity, which would involve a larger amount or more powerful means of explosives every so many floors down to the bottom. if that was the case then no it was'nt the same as a normal CD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
bushwacker, that is a fine collection of misrepresentations, outright lies, irrelevancies and non-sequitors! |
Whatever it is, it is at least supported by evidence and analysis, it is not just a series of headlines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zimboy69
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
i have a few ideas on the tower fires my self
i guess were all agreed there was 2 towers and both were really big
ive been wondering that if these planes hit about half way up and about a 3rd from the top of the towers
then the sections above the fires were still large sections probably both were as big as a normal tower on its own so the section that colapsed had a huge amount of weight on it
so when ur talking about buildings on fire how many still had at least 10 floors above the fire
most tall buildings in the uk are at most only 15 floors high
how many of these fires started on the ground floor or close to it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
