Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freak Dodgeball Accident said:
Just saying it doesn't look very hot in there. The fires must have melted the steel pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

is the photo legit? Its linked from another forum.

one interesting thing in the photo, no not the woman, was look at the columns you can see that there universal columns, RSJ in the old language, the typical I sections. Outside of the blast zone you can see they are concrete encased but at the impact zone the blackened sections are visible.

Thing about steel is that it weakens with heat, increases in ductility. When I say melted I didn't mean literally, I mean softened sufficiently to loose structural strength. Believe the language I used was effectively not literally.

Must admit the chick in photo looks good for someone who just survived an explosion, clothes aren't messed up at all. No chance she got photo shopped in.

now I could attach counteless photos of the explosion and subsequent fires but theres little point in playing photo tennis. Do you disagree with the engineering logic? Can you suggest an alternative?
 
Freak Dodgeball Accident said:
Yeah, looks like it got pretty hot!


wtc-woman-impact-area-jpg.2366
Click to expand...

Where is all the smoke?

What is that actually a picture of?

Considering there was no point, in which huge amounts of smoke wasn't bellowing out of either tower, I don't understand how you think this picture is real...

Also, where did they set up the smoke machines to make it seem like a massive fire?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Freak Dodgeball Accident said:
Yeah, looks like it got pretty hot!


wtc-woman-impact-area-jpg.2366
Click to expand...
The woman in the image was identified as Edna Cintron by her husband. He also identified her in another photo taken moments later - after she jumped!

Seriously, THIS is what sickens me to my core about you "truth" seekers. You look about as far as your nose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kellythatsit said:
Seriously, THIS is what sickens me to my core about you "truth" seekers. You look about as far as your nose.
Click to expand...

I also 'tineyed' the picture to find the source but couldn't locate it. Can I get any more information on this picture. Maybe a wider picture so I can see where on the building this is and at what stage.

Edit: Don't worry, I've done my own research. Somebody else thinks i's his wife but who can really tell?

Secondly, she jumped. One would presume she jumped because it was ****ing hot.

EdnaCintronFalling.jpg
 
Sorry to cause such confusion...

I had originally seen the picture in a video about the people who had jumped from the building, wasn't from a truther video or anything.

I'd only posted it in reply to Chameleon75 saying the steel had melted (which he later retracted). Posting the pic was more of a tongue in cheek comment, as we all know none of the fires were hot enough to melt steel. Whether it was hot enough to weaken it, that's another argument all together.

So the picture might even be fake, who knows. I wasn't posting it as a hard fact, just more of a piss take.
 
Freak Dodgeball Accident said:
Sorry to cause such confusion...

I had originally seen the picture in a video about the people who had jumped from the building, wasn't from a truther video or anything.

I'd only posted it in reply to Chameleon75 saying the steel had melted (which he later retracted). Posting the pic was more of a tongue in cheek comment, as we all know none of the fires were hot enough to melt[\b] steel. Whether it was hot enough to weaken it, that's another argument all together.

So the picture might even be fake, who knows. I wasn't posting it as a hard fact, just more of a piss take.
Click to expand...


Sadly some websites, with bias, do use this photo as proof that the building wasn't hot. Funnily enough they rarely go on to say the women eventually couldn't bear it any longer and decided to jump to her death then burn to it.
 
too hot for a human obviously does not imply too hot for a steel girder or 50. If it was hot enough to structurally weaken steel in that area then a human couldn't stand there at all without catching fire etc. A person was standing there (for a bit) therefore it wasn't THAT hot....not significantly hot for the steel in that area. This is what the photo indicates.
 
Last edited:
Kellythatsit said:
Excellent. So please explain what should have happened instead.

And, as this didn't happen please tell us what this indicates to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

all the planes involved should have been shot down half an hour before reaching any target. This indicates a rather large "failure of imagination" ;) on behalf of norad faa the air force etc.
 
lenny&carl said:
too hot for a human obviously does not imply too hot for a steel girder or 50. If it was hot enough to structurally weaken steel in that area then a human couldn't stand there at all without catching fire etc. A person was standing there (for a bit) therefore it wasn't THAT hot....not significantly hot for the steel in that area. This is what the photo indicates.
Click to expand...

have a look at the photo again, theres a 3 level void, you can see two slabs stacked on top of each other in the background. Fire was probably on the level above to begin with, lack of flames looks like its burnt itself out. Rocket fuel burns at around 1250°C, structural steel back then yeilds at 900°c, the new steel now yeilds at around 1500°c, they've upped the grade since then. Bit like they revised the wind code after tracey and revised the earthquake code after Newcastle.
 
The explosion blew off the concrete encasement and left a gaping hole, a simple office fire can burn just as hot when fully oxygenated.

Nevertheless the explosion and or fire sets the scene but isn't the ulitimate cause, those columns spanning 3 levels is the issue thats 10.5m instead of the normal 3.5. Very slender ultimately buckled.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How did rocket fuel enter the discussion? :) None of that involved...only avgas (JET fuel) which is not remarkably different to kerosene. Have you ever worried that the heat in a kero lamp would structurally weaken the chintzy tin(?) those lamps are made of?
 
lenny&carl said:
How did rocket fuel enter the discussion? :) None of that involved...only avgas (JET fuel) which is not remarkably different to kerosene. Have you ever worried that the heat in a kero lamp would structurally weaken the chintzy tin(?) those lamps are made of?
Click to expand...

Quite right, poor use of language on my behalf. Oxygen determines the intensity of the burn.
 
There are few things I cant get my head around...maybe because I have been fed BS or just never gotten the full story but.....

I want to know how amatuer pilots were able to manipulate planes they never flew before so precisely into the buildings when only a handful of expert pilots could do this successfully on simulation...

Also the pentigon aftermath is a bit suss very little debri the hole in the side of the pentigon....the most secure building in the world yet only one rubbish video frame of something slamming into the building
 
Anyone who thinks 9/11 movement is just some wild "conspiracy" is a sheep (idiot) of the highest order.



Just one video that shows gross inconsistencies and eye openers.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how many questions and footage of people who were at the scene that day, who told what they saw and heard that doesn't match the official version, the people on this forum and the other thousands of forums like it who refuse to even entertain the thought that not all is as it seems, even if its right in front of their noses, those people will continue to blindly defend the faith and label all those who question with the words nutter and tin foil hat etc
That's why after all this time we still have all these unanswered questions !!
There are none so blind as those who want to be
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top