Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
No. I'm saying after the impact it building was not entirely air tight. The bottom and the area at the point of impact had been violated, but this only added more fuel to the fire by making it a firestorm. The amount of wind that must have been moving through that tower must have been huge.
|
The fact that the fire was dying at the point of the building's fall, that there was only dark smoke coming from those compromised floors, apparently means nothing. There was no "firestorm". Firefighters at the 72nd floor said they could "knock it out" with only a pair of hoses. They were actually on the compromised floors, and reported no problems breathing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Of course it was edited for length. That's exactly what a report is - it stats the relevant facts. It doesn't mention that there was a suspicious blue Mercedes parked outside of the WTC at the moment of impact because it's not relevant.
|
No, it was edited to reflect no contradictions to its own pre-conceived conclusions. Any objective, contradictory testimonies (such as that of all the firefighters reporting explosions, witnesses testifying to explosions before the impacts, Norman Mineta describing how Cheney knew about the flight into the Pentagon, Sibel Edmonds outlining the relationship between bin Laden and the CIA, etc. etc...) were excluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Over 1200 people were interviewed and they reviewed over two million documents... Then they reported on what they found. If it wasn't important or relevant, it wasn't reported.
|
Wrong. Your blind faith in the government is incredible condiring your intelligence and skepticism. While excising minor relevancies is normal, the 9/11 report is shockingly devoid of any mentions of all testimony contrary to it's ultimate conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
I'm not a chemist, I'm not a physicist, I'm not an architect, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a demolition expert, I'm not a forensic expert.
And neither are you.
You and I and everyone else here can only say what we believe based on what we have seen on TEEVEE and read in magazines, newspapers and online, by experts, and "experts". The best we can ever hope for is to take all of the info in, and use it as a basis for our OPINION.
My -opinion- is that WTC was felled by planes, fire and damage. What you say should be opinion as well, and not -fact-. No one here is an expert, so words like fact, truth, proof, etc should be left out unless quoted.
|
Since I know and admit I'm not an expert, and my "common sense" told me on the day they occurred that the buildings were taken down on purpose, I don't rely on religious-style belief, but forensic experts who do have the knowledge and expertise to pronounce themselves to back up what my "common sense" told me to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Your OPINION is that they did not lead to complete collapse.
|
My opinion based on what I saw, on what has been shown as evidence, and what has NOT been shown by the government and those that claim the contrary, leads me to think that the buildings were taken down by incendiaries and other external agents, yes...
:D