Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire VERSUS 911/WTC "fire" (parade, Sanders, independent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While you are at it explain why the Pentagon fire was quickly extinguished, while the [Twin] towers burned for weeks and were unable to be extinguished, when they supposedly were all hit by planes carrying similar amounts of fuel.
Great point Jim, I hadn't thought of that.
BTW, nano-thermite is NOT white phospherous. If you want to know what nano-thermite is, look it up.
If you understand what nano-thermite is and how it works, the way the buildings all exploded from the inside into fine white powder while collapsing at free-fall speed makes perfect sense.
Also, another of the many childish, ridiculous arguments of the posters on here who foolishly believe the gov's BS official "story" about 9-11:
The numerous and massive explosions before and during the three (not two) towers collapsed were caused by "plummeting elevators full of burning humans hitting the bottom of the elevator shaft".
Hah hah. Marvelous imagery there, but that is absurd!
What do I do for a living? What in heck does that have to do with the 9-11 phony-terrorist fraud?
ANSWER: Nothing.
I have a question back for you:
Why can't you or your crazy brainwashed friends on here compose even a single sentence in English that isn't full of misspelled words and grammatical errors?
While you are at it explain why the Pentagon fire was quickly extinguished, while the [Twin] towers burned for weeks and were unable to be extinguished, when they supposedly were all hit by planes carrying similar amounts of fuel.
Very simple explanation, you had burning material buried under mountains of debris at the WTC site. Less oxygen and it will burn much longer. You can perform a very simple experiment yourself to confirm this. Build a fire and once it gets down the coals take half the coals and bury them in a hole. When your above ground fire has completely extinguished and is throwing no more heat you can dig up your buried coals that will still be very hot and burning.
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-15-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Reason: spelling
Now, on to my main reason for posting today. Another Chinese skyscraper was totally burned to a crisp. This one was not empty, it was full of flammable "stuff" like furniture, etc, unlike the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire that this thread was originally discussing.
Of course, the contents of the building is not much of a factor. I just mention that because it was another of the many childish, absurd and looney arguments brought forth by the 9-11 "official story" defenders in this thread.
Well, explain this latest one please...
Another skyscraper thoroughly burnt to a crisp with very high temperature flames yet not ONE SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL damaged or out of place. In fact, everything BUT the steel frame of the building burnt up.
Needless to say, this latest skyscraper fire did NOT end with the building exploding from the inside into plumes of fine white powder and completely collapsing in less than 10 seconds.
Get it straight people, 9-11 was a HOAX and a despicable, murderous crime against Americans committed by people associated with the Bush/Cheney administration.
It is a factor if the contents of the building include a couple thousand gallons of jet fuel.
And a giant hole in the side of it greatly exacerbating the weakness because of the unique construction of the WTC towers. The OP is again comparing apples and oranges.
WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, but collapsed, due to 'fires' as the official 'explanation'.
Would it be logical to deduct that American made steel structures are inferior to Chinese made steel structures?
Americans are such ignorant, gullible chumps. They just ate up the 'official government' version without question.
WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, but collapsed, due to 'fires' as the official 'explanation'.
It was hit by the other buildings when they collapsed and sustained significant damage. If you don't think the corner of the building completely collapsed at a lower level is significant you know nothing about engineering.
It was hit by the other buildings when they collapsed and sustained significant damage. If you don't think the corner of the building completely collapsed at a lower level is significant you know nothing about engineering.
See page , 16 on : http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf
WTC 7 did not topple to one side, but came down evenly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
