WTC attacks - the alternative thread
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
WouldBe said:
Hold on WouldBe, can we get something straight here? I didn't post up the pic featuring black smoke, you did, with a sneering remark to the effect that it proved that there was an inferno. Of course it did no such thing because smouldering produces loads of black smoke. Having been corrected you are now trying to make it look as if I am insisting that the black smoke proved 'no inferno' which I am not doing - while completely ignoring the strong arguments I am actually making for 'no inferno'.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
DrJ have you actually bothered reading any of those links you put up?
Transcript of BBC Horizon program
So the surviving staircase would have been furthest away from the point of impact.
So this small fire was furthest away from the point of impact and wouldn't have been accelerated by jet fuel. There was no way of seeing what the fire was like in the worse affected area.
This being the only surviving staircase would have been the one used by the firemen on 79 who reported fires
So the whole concourse is on fire but you believe the building is only smouldering!!!!!!
Transcript of BBC Horizon program
Narrator re S tower said:
So the surviving staircase would have been furthest away from the point of impact.
Brian Clarke surviver on 81st floor said:
as above on 80th floor said:
So this small fire was furthest away from the point of impact and wouldn't have been accelerated by jet fuel. There was no way of seeing what the fire was like in the worse affected area.
This being the only surviving staircase would have been the one used by the firemen on 79 who reported fires
Only other survivor from above impact site said:
So the whole concourse is on fire but you believe the building is only smouldering!!!!!!
It's unlikely people would leap from the building to escape smoke. There'd have to be quite a fire going on to impel people to jump to certain death.
Smoldering, eh?
Just before the South Tower collapsed the fire was all but out. Sure there was fire to start with, loads of smoke (yes, people would jump out of a building to avoid smoke, it's usually how people die in fires). There was never an 'inferno'. How the hell could someone be photographed peering out through the impact hole if there was any sort of 'inferno' going on?????
Walter Mitty
Seasoned lizard hunter
editor said:
If you look at the bigger version of the photo in post 555 its clearly a tiny woman. No fires or smoke.
editor
hiraethified
Ok. I can see it now (who took the pic by the way?)Walter Mitty said:
But if you can't see smoke or burning fires above her you need your eyes examined. And in the wide angle view you can see great plumes of smoke belching all over Manhattan.
So what's this supposed to prove anyway?
Because the fire wasn't where she was? Wild guess, there.DrJazzz said:
Yes, people die from smoke inhalation. People definitely die from dropping from the eightieth floor of a building. Question is, is suffocating from smoke so terrible that it makes people leap to their deaths in droves? I'm sure the threat of burning to death would have that effect.
How do you know the fire was all but out when the buildings collapsed? There, were you? No matter. We know something caused the structures to fall down. Seems to me a fuck off fire might just do it. I suppose it coould have been aliens. We don't need to consder that yet though.
Jangla said:
It was turned into that ages ago jangla.
This is indeed my line over the two years, people here seem so inflexible about things. It is their position to attack posters who question the official version, while those that question the official line are more interested in what happened than attacking posters. They want answers, i want answers. The links posted here over the months, and the ones i've found myself, and my deep distrust over governments such as the US or UK ones, lead me to conclude, happily to my satisfaction that the minimum involvement by the USG is letting it happen on purpose.
I spend most of my time on these threads more lately in trying to put right all the attacks put the way of the questioners.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
fela fan said:
The south tower had an observation deck on the roof. You could get plenty of fresh air there.
WR's photo shows quite a strong breeze blowing so all you would have to do is move to the side of the tower the wind is blowing from and again you could get plenty of fresh air. So why the need to jump?
Well, unlike you, I don't know what it was that made them jump but if it was me it would have to be very terrible indeed to make me do it. It's a basic human instinct not to leap. You ask any skydiver.fela fan said:
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
white rabbit said:
You could ask Ronald Maris, a forensic suicide expert and director of the Center for the Study of Suicide at the University of South Carolina, who says:
"In a way, it was a healthy response, It is taking charge of a situation rather than letting the situation take charge of you. The primary motive of all suicides is escape. What are they fleeing from? In this case, they have escaped from terrible thoughts of being crushed to death, or burned to death, by annihilating their consciousness in a way that is nearly instantaneous."
Or perhaps Lanny Berman, executive director of the American Association of Suicidology:
"It's an issue of control. All people want to have some control over their lives, and that includes the nature and timing of their deaths. The notion of having death happen to you is less viable than being in charge of it."
Maybe spend a moment considering the view of Calvin Frederick, former UCLA psychiatry professor and an expert on traumatic stress:
"It is unlikely that at the moment of their decision, any of the jumpers saw beauty in their plight. Their decision may have been an effort to seek control, or to choose the better of two awful alternatives. Most likely, the choice was unconscious, impulsive, a reflex more than a decision.
There's smoke, there's a fear of horrific pain, it's imminent. You can't breathe, and here is an escape. Your response is very primitive. An animal response. You become a human animal at that point, and an animal will flee."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A20676-2001Sep12¬Found=true
white rabbit said:
So, let's get this straight white rabbit.
A plane full of jet fuel crashes into the South Tower, and explodes, creating an inferno in a completely different section of the building to the floor it came in on! Can you see why someone might have problems with this scenario?
I was watching the thing live on television. Before the South Tower collapsed it looked like the fire was nearly out and I remember a commentator saying so at the time. I can find absolutely no evidence that this was not the case - and plenty to contradict the official theory that there was some raging inferno. There wasn't. And yes, something caused the structures to fall down. Without a 'fuck off fire' we have to look for another explanation - as Sherlock Holmes said, "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth, however improbable".
An objective investigation would not eliminate the possibility that the towers were demolished by controlled explosions simply due to a post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument - i.e., the plane impacts must have caused the collapses simply because they were there and preceded them. It is a shame that so many people seem to take this fallacy and think they are applying 'Occam's razor'.
Why did the South Tower collapse first?
Look at the evidence objectively. We have absolutely no evidence of an 'inferno' at the South Tower before it collapses and plenty of evidence to suggest that there simply remained isolated pockets of fire. Due to the plane just catching the corner of the tower, most of the jet fuel exploded outside the tower. Yet, the South Tower fell before the North - why? There was far more of a fire at the North Tower. However if the towers were being demolished and the fires to be the spurious reason, control of the South Tower fire (which the fireman's tape revealed was not far away) would spell disaster - and the South Tower collapse would have to be brought forward.
Ya what?!Backatcha Bandit said:
WouldBe
Dislicksick
DrJazzz said:
Lets take a wild guess here.
North tower hit floor 93 with a big fire affecting central core which is major steel work and fewer floors affected due to horizontal flight path.
South tower hit floor 78 with most of the damage done to outer columns and more floors affected due to angled flight path. Damaged section of south tower is having to support an extra ~100,000 tons than north tower.
I would have expected the South tower to fall first.
What keeps puzzling me is the Flat-Earthers pointing out these curious anaomalies (that only they have the insight to pick up on) and yet the USG is able to summon incredible resources to do God knows what. Pack buildings with explosives, make hundreds of passengers disappear, get a crack team of impersonators to fool relatives and all the rest of it.
You have thought they'd have been a bit more careful flipping the trigger on which tower went down first.
"Hey, Bob, wasn't the North Tower supposed to be blown first?"
"Shit, you're right. Let's hope no one notices."
You have thought they'd have been a bit more careful flipping the trigger on which tower went down first.
"Hey, Bob, wasn't the North Tower supposed to be blown first?"
"Shit, you're right. Let's hope no one notices."
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
editor said:
There's nothing bizarre about lunatic conspiracy theories spreading. But you have to admit, it's pretty strange for an intelligent person to believe such obvious horseshit.
Similar threads
