1
   

Did the U.S. goverment really set up 9/11

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:40 pm
bond77770 wrote:
There was alot of black smoke coming out of the towers. Black smoke means that the fire is not burning.


I'm sure glad to learn this. I was certainly scared by that nasty black cloud coming from the Buncefield oil depot last December.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41138000/jpg/_41138284_oil_fire_pa_416.jpg

I'm glad it was at least not a burning fire.
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:41 pm
yes I did. Those quotes are from the website you gave me!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:44 pm
old europe wrote:
bond77770 wrote:
There was alot of black smoke coming out of the towers. Black smoke means that the fire is not burning.


I'm sure glad to learn this. I was certainly scared by that nasty black cloud coming from the Buncefield oil depot last December.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41138000/jpg/_41138284_oil_fire_pa_416.jpg

I'm glad it was at least not a burning fire.
nice pic oe

we were awakened by the blast 30 miles away.

I believe the authorities are trying to cover up the fact it was a terrorist attack.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:49 pm
bond77770 wrote:
yes I did. Those quotes are from the website you gave me!


Those quotes are from the second link I provided, not the first link.

Ticomaya wrote:
Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation.

By Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:52 pm
old europe wrote

Quote:
Buncefield oil depot


Comon old europe, are you suggesting the WTC was used to store 'oil' like the 'oil depot' ? :wink:

Have you tried to burn oil ?
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:54 pm
Oil burns black! Which is different from burning jet fuel.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:06 pm
Well, guess what they were storing at Buncefield:

Quote:
The Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal (HOSL - Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd), generally known as the Buncefield complex, was the fifth largest oil-products storage depot in the UK, with a capacity of approximately 60 million Imperial gallons (273 million litres) of fuel, although it was not always filled. This was approximately 5% of UK oil storage capacity. It was a major hub on the UK's oil pipeline network (UKOP) with pipelines to Humberside and Merseyside and is an important fuel source to the British aviation industry, providing aircraft fuel for local airports including London Gatwick, London Heathrow and Luton airports. Approximately half of the complex is dedicated to the storage of aviation fuel. The remainder of the complex stores petrol and diesel fuel for petrol stations across much of the South-East of England. The terminal is owned by TOTAL UK Limited (60%) and Texaco 40%.


But apart from that, Bond's claim was that the smoke was evidence that the fuel was not burning, right?

Here, read it again:

bond77770 wrote:
Black smoke means that the fire is not burning.


Do you still stand by the statement, bond? Do you support it, Zippo?
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:15 pm
old europe wrote:
Well, guess what they were storing at Buncefield:

Quote:
(UKOP) with pipelines to Humberside and Merseyside and is an important fuel source to the British aviation industry, providing aircraft fuel for local airports including London Gatwick, London Heathrow and Luton airports. Approximately half of the complex is dedicated to the storage of aviation fuel. The remainder of the complex stores petrol and diesel fuel for petrol stations across much of the South-East of England. The terminal is owned by TOTAL UK Limited (60%) and Texaco 40%.


Was the part that was on fire jet fuel or oil? It looked like a pretty small section of the depot.

Nyc firefighters said that there was only 2 small pockets of fires.
The fire was simply smoldering not burning. If you knew anything about fire you would agree.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:24 pm
bond77770 wrote:
Was the part that was on fire jet fuel or oil? It looked like a pretty small section of the depot.


Depends what you mean by "pretty small". The Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal handled around 2.37 million metric tonnes of oil products a year

Here you can see the affected area:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41388000/gif/_41388577_buncefield_areas2_416.gif

and here you can see a satellite image of the smoke cloud:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41118000/gif/_41118758_buncefield_aerial2_416.gif
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:25 pm
But what part of the depot was on fire? Was it the oil part or the jet fuel part?
Smoke indicates that a fire is not burning very well as it does not have enough air to burn. Smoking fires are cool fires and are not as hot as a fire with enough air.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:39 pm
bond77770 wrote:
But what part of the depot was on fire? Was it the oil part or the jet fuel part?


The jet fuel part.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal#Construction_and_operation]Wikipedia[/URL] wrote:
The site consists of a northern and a southern portion, with the southern being used by BP and the northern portion being divided into 3 sectors; HOSL West, the BPA area, and HOSL East. Texaco, Total and Shell use HOSL West and HOSL East, while the BPA area is occupied by facilities of the British Pipeline Agency (BPA), mostly for aviation fuel. HOSL West was the main site in the northern portion of HOSL, and was used for storage of a variety of fuels excluding aviation fuel and kerosene, which are stored at BPA. The fire destroyed most of HOSL West and the BPA area.


You can easily identify HOSL West and the BPA area in the picture I posted earlier. And you can see how the black smoke is emanating from the BPA area, where the aviation fuel and kerosene were stored.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:43 pm
bond77770 wrote:
Smoke indicates that a fire is not burning very well as it does not have enough air to burn. Smoking fires are cool fires and are not as hot as a fire with enough air.


Sounds like you're talking about your experience with the boyscouts, but I doubt that your theory can be applied to burning kerosene.
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:54 pm
If you watch videos of the WTC after the inital collision, you can't see any fire at all. You can only see black smoke coming out of the windows which would support my statement that the fire was not burning but simply smoldering.

In Caracas, Venezuela, An intense fire burned for 17 hours. hmmm, howcome this skyscraper held up for 17 hours of intense heat and fire damage? The WTC stood up to about 1 hour of fire damage not nearly enough as The other skyscraper did. The WTC collapse were the first skycrapers to collapse due to fire! I probably already said this but I want to make it clear.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:01 pm
bond77770 wrote:
You can only see black smoke coming out of the windows which would support my statement that the fire was not burning but simply smoldering.


Interesting enough, after a passing interest in the material posted, you have managed to completely ignore any conclusive evidence presented to you just in these previous posts, and are now back to merely restating your earlier claim, which you have not backed up in any way, form or shape.

bond, could you please provide evidence that a kerosene fire that produces huge amounts of black smoke is not burning but simply smoldering?

A link to a reputable source would be appreciated. Otherwise, people will most likely dismiss your theory as your personal opinion, originating from the other side of reality...
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:03 pm
bond, could you please provide evidence that a kerosene fire that produces huge amounts of black smoke is not burning but simply smoldering?

Yes I can
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+truth

6:00 in the video
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:06 pm
New York Firefighters' Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11 link
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:13 pm
You must have missed the part where I asked you for a link to a reputable source. A "9/11 Truth" video is not a reputable source, but you already knew that, right?

I'm waiting, though.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:18 pm
Bond, ever heard of Google? Let's see if we can figure out what a Jet Fuel fire looks like, shall we?
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/images/fire_response.jpg
Quote:
A tank truck carrying 13,000 gallons of jet fuel rolled over and ignited on the Richardson Highway in August 2001.

Source

Luckily, that black smoke is indicative of no fire. Laughing
0 Replies
 
bond77770
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:19 pm
There is no question at all that the WTC building 7 collapsed due to explosives. First of all, there was no fire damage at all. Larry Silverstein had this to say: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"Pull it" is a term used by demolitioon experts to pull the cord on demolition charges. If WTC was destroyed by explosives, is it not possiable that the other WTC buildings were destroyed by demolition charges. Witnesses said that the could hear large bangs and rumbles. NYC firefighters even said that it was a controlled demolition. Witnesses inside of the towers said that There was not alot of heat and fire, just smoke.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:26 pm
"9/11 Truth" video is not a reputable source". That's pretty funny. The 911 Commission is not a reputable source. Funny how they ignore eyewitness accounts. Many of those who do study 911 have formed into the 911 truth movement. Scientists, experts in their fields, reputable, educated people who realize pooling their info and research is wise. People who dont wanna know excuse them for sure. I hope someday the government's scientists go up against 911 truth's scientists, before Congress and the American people and duke it out with experiments. I know FEMA says " the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That's what the 911 truth movement is asking for. . Further research, investigation, and analyses in the open for all to see. A reasonable desire and one supported by over 70 million Americans who simply do not buy the government's theories.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 02:06:13