Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
9/11 Attacks
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Do you know anything about what happened that day?
As is well known - when the plane hit the building a fireball came down the lift shaft and into the lobby - killing and burning a number of people and damaging some of the lobby.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/blaich.htmlLobby & 3rd floor: Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.
The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I do’nt recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.
There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.
That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Security wasn't tight for internal flight's back then and the weapons were just box cutters not ak47's
Also WTC was not designed to survive a hit by an aircraft. Some people just had a chat about it
That is a far cry from being specifically designed to survive a hit
ugghhh
Video's have been posted of the towers architects stating they were designed to take several hits from 707 jets.
Then someone stated that the plane that hit was larger than a 707 jet.
Then I stated, it's only a bit bigger, plus a 707 is faster and they were designed for several hits from a 707 !!
Then someone pointed out that the architects didn't take into account that the planes could have a full fuel load.
And now I am pointing out, do you take us for fuking retards and expect us to believe they didn't take fuel into account ?
Were they solar or wind powered plane they thought might hit the towers on a foggy day ?
0 -
ugghhh
Video's have been posted of the towers architects stating they were designed to take several hits from 707 jets.
Then someone stated that the plane that hit was larger than a 707 jet.
Then I stated, it's only a bit bigger, plus a 707 is faster and they were designed for several hits from a 707 !!
That was a construction manager said that before 9/11. It's akin to saying the Titanic was unsinkable before she sailed.Then someone pointed out that the architects didn't take into account that the planes could have a full fuel load.
And now I am pointing out, do you take us for fuking retards and expect us to believe they didn't take fuel into account ?
Were they solar or wind powered plane they thought might hit the towers on a foggy day ?
The Chief Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson said they never took into account a plane with a full fuel load being deliberately crashed into the building. They only considered a slow flying plane low on fuel lost in fog on a landing pattern as the only example they had of a plane crashing into a building was the B25 in 1945. What you state is incorrect.0 -
ugghhh
Video's have been posted of the towers architects stating they were designed to take several hits from 707 jets.
Then someone stated that the plane that hit was larger than a 707 jet.
Then I stated, it's only a bit bigger, plus a 707 is faster and they were designed for several hits from a 707 !!
Then someone pointed out that the architects didn't take into account that the planes could have a full fuel load.
And now I am pointing out, do you take us for fuking retards and expect us to believe they didn't take fuel into account ?
Were they solar or wind powered plane they thought might hit the towers on a foggy day ?
ON that note.
September 11: planes that hit WTC were not Boeing 767s
http://www.voltairenet.org/article166661.htmlThe official report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) relating to the two planes that crashed into WTC on September 11, 2001 shows that they were traveling at a speed of 945 km/h and 796 km/h respectively.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, has pointed out that, according to the manufacturer, the Boeing 767 develops structural failure and dismembers at a speed surpassing 660 km/h when flying at near sea level in thick air. This has also been certified by a former senior NASA executive, Dwain Deets.
It necessarily follows that the aircraft that slammed into the World Trade Center could not have been the planes corresponding to commercial flights United 175 and American 11.
In his book The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan had entertained the possibility that the two aircraft had actually been substituted by military planes according to the procedure contemplated in Operation Northwoods (p. 168).
The NTSB report, which was declassified at the request of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, had already revealed that the cockpit door of flight American 77 had remained locked from the time of take-off until it disappeared from radar screens and allegedly crashed at the Pentagon site. The logical conclusion is that it would have been materially impossible to highjack the flight.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
now with all the videos of the plane hitting the second tower how can he entertain that idea
Well, I don't full support this video, but... take a look
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
That video is just some guy spouting his personal opinion, any very large project has a huge number of hangers on who will talk nonsense to get some tv time, just like the titanic is unsinkable, the towers were designed as office blocks not nuclear bunkers, sure when they were being built there was a lot of talk going around along the lines of wow it's so tall what if a plane hit and no doubt some people had a chat around a cup of coffee and came to the conclusion that yea this building is teh awesome and would totally survive multiple hits by jet's and an attack by the blob at the same time.
There was no real life testing of the survivability of any part of that tower to a plane strike, it was just a chat.
If you want to know if a construction would survive a plane strike you fly a plane into a replica - someone in this thread posted a link to a video of that nature, it would be correct to state that building was built to survive a jet strike , where's the video of a mock up of the wtc surviving a 707 hit.
You could probably model it these days with a lot of super computer time but not back then.
Ok. They both survived hits from planes.
The fuel exploded and was burned out within seconds.
It was the office fires that finished them off, right ?
HA!
But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?
Were they hiding something ?
Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?
0 -
-
Ok. They both survived hits from planes.
The fuel exploded and was burned out within seconds.
It was the office fires that finished them off, right ?
HA!
But why did the pentagon and the FAA hamper investigations ?
Were they hiding something ?
Surely they wanted to get to the truth ?
Oh dear. "Taxi for Soveriegn"
Any chance you could provide evidence of the FAA and Pentagon hampering investigations?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
namloc1980 wrote: »Oh dear. "Taxi for Soveriegn"
Any chance you could provide evidence of the FAA and Pentagon hampering investigations?
Given the fact that the chairman stated that the Pentagon and the FAA hampered the investigation by delivering misstatements, you can assume that evidence provided by pentagon and FAA officials in the commission report are misstatements.
Do you deny this ?
Here he is stating it on film...
And here is a wiki statement...
Keeping in mind, this is the chair and vice chairman stating this...The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials
While I understand you are a proud man and dont wish to loose a debate... I ask you to consider this information.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgneseWjgqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement