|
Post by Ranb on Apr 3, 2007 9:26:35 GMT -4
.....Firefighters know that to fight an open plan office building fire is almost hopeless and therefore use a controlled burn procedure to allow the combustibles to burn out and allow occupants to escape by fighting the fire from a defensive position...... Don't you actually mean that fire and damage from aircraft and falling debris caused the buildings to fall? Are you denying that the buildings were damaged by aircraft and falling debris prior to collapsing? Can you tell us more about this controlled burn procedure that firefighters use in open plan office buildings? Where and when has it been used? Ranb
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 3, 2007 10:31:05 GMT -4
And so for the first time in history a global collapse, not once but three times on the one day from office fires. After all this discussion are you still unwilling to admit that all three building had major structural damage and accelerant spread fires? Get your head out of the sand.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 3, 2007 10:45:43 GMT -4
And so for the first time in history a global collapse, not once but three times on the one day from office fires. Repeat after me: "It wasn't just the fire that caused the buildings to collapse." WTC 1 & 2 had structural damage from airplane imapcts that contributed to their collapse. WTC 7 had structure damage from the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 that contributed to it's collapse. I really wish CT's would look at the full scenario and not try to attribute the collapses to one thing.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 3, 2007 15:11:36 GMT -4
She sounds like an American patriot to me. Your constitution is being destroyed by a corrupt regime with 911 as the catalyst, that's worth investigating surely Yes. However, the science behind the collapse of the buildings is well-established. A better thing to investigate would be the causative links between 9/11, an event well-known to have had nothing to do with the Iraqi regime, and the war in Iraq. Investigating the scientifically sound events of the day are a distraction from the issues that are really relevant. The fact is, I have no great love for the current administration, and I didn't before they sent my boyfriend to another continent. Heck, I got my boyfriend to register to vote so that he could vote against the current administration. If there were any evidence, any evidence at all, that the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 was unsupported by a cause of Big Frickin' Planes plus Big Frickin' Fires, I would agree with you. But there isn't. You claiming there is distracts from the issues at hand, real issues like bringing troops home alive.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 3, 2007 15:21:48 GMT -4
Rosie apparently doesn't believe 9/11 was caused by the U.S. government. In fact, I've heard it said that she believes 9/11 was essentially "cover" for the destruction of WTC 7.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Apr 3, 2007 16:52:51 GMT -4
...for the first time in history... What I like about this hyperbole (?) is that Human history is itself pretty much just a blink. Then on top of that, how long have we actually had buildings such as WTC 1, 2 & 7?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 3, 2007 16:54:17 GMT -4
Rosie apparently doesn't believe 9/11 was caused by the U.S. government. In fact, I've heard it said that she believes 9/11 was essentially "cover" for the destruction of WTC 7. Well, that totally makes sense. Wait, what?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 3, 2007 17:45:49 GMT -4
.....Firefighters know that to fight an open plan office building fire is almost hopeless and therefore use a controlled burn procedure to allow the combustibles to burn out and allow occupants to escape by fighting the fire from a defensive position...... Can you tell us more about this controlled burn procedure that firefighters use in open plan office buildings? Where and when has it been used? Ranb I'd like to see furthur elaboration on and citations for this firefighting method as well.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 3, 2007 23:17:41 GMT -4
She sounds like an American patriot to me. Your constitution is being destroyed by a corrupt regime with 911 as the catalyst, that's worth investigating surely Yes. However, the science behind the collapse of the buildings is well-established. Can you cite any papers prior to 911 which investigated the collapse of 100 %steel framed buildings ? A better thing to investigate would be the causative links between 9/11, an event well-known to have had nothing to do with the Iraqi regime, and the war in Iraq. It is the motive for the" War on terror".By that phrase alone Bush have falsely thinking he could start every war he wanted with the assentiment of -mostly- all nations like it was the case for his war against Afganistan.Now Bush is about to ruin the US economy with the Iraq war.But he still win the Oil war benifits just look at the price of gazoline prior to 911 and the price now.Actually that is the rumors of War with Iran which made the price of gazoline going up. The real winners are Bush and all the petroleum industries. Sorry Gilli,I could not resist to that post. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 3, 2007 23:49:08 GMT -4
Can you tell us more about this controlled burn procedure that firefighters use in open plan office buildings? Where and when has it been used? Ranb I'd like to see furthur elaboration on and citations for this firefighting method as well. I'd like further elaboration of the actual damage to the towers, but what are you gonna do. I see a lot of claims from your side of the argument without citation.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 4, 2007 0:11:46 GMT -4
And so for the first time in history a global collapse, not once but three times on the one day from office fires. After all this discussion are you still unwilling to admit that all three building had major structural damage and accelerant spread fires? Get your head out of the sand. I'm fine with all that, we know the buildings were damaged, we know there were fires, these things have happened before. We are left with this, And global collapse ensued. What the F***! That's never ever happened before, without a big box of explosives and that's where they sign off. Anyone who dares say hang on a minute, I think you guys are 300 pages short is labeled a conspiracy nut, that's what's going on in your sandbox , i pulled my head out years ago. Besides I'm more Emu than Ostrich.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 4, 2007 0:18:30 GMT -4
we know the buildings were damaged, we know there were fires, these things have happened before. At the same time, to the same building(s)? When?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 4, 2007 0:30:01 GMT -4
we know the buildings were damaged, we know there were fires, these things have happened before. At the same time, to the same building(s)? When? No there have been large building fires before as well as plane impacts, bombs. Can you cite another global collapse of a skyscraper, just out of interest.?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 4, 2007 1:18:55 GMT -4
At the same time, to the same building(s)? No Which is exactly the point. Can you cite another skyscraper which was struck by a near-fully-fuelled transcontinental airliner at high speed, just out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 4, 2007 2:04:13 GMT -4
I guess Rosie is an engineering expert now. Hopefully ABC will respond by actually putting a physics expert on the show as Rosie suggested... it will backfire on her. I believe the freedom of speech is important, but it is frustrating when idiots like her can spread that kind of garbage on an international program without anyone there to respond to it. We are all entitled to have our own opinion on 9/11. As you know, I find the official collapse theory, on the whole, to be garbage. But that doesn't mean I consider those who believe the official collapse theory to be a bunch of "idiots". Likewise, I hope that you aren't calling her (or anyone else) an idiot, simply for disputing the official theory. As for your subject title's question... She - and her views - are not that big a deal, either way. It's somewhat beneficial, in that it once again raises the issue in a mainstream media forum - where it's been virtually "taboo" to dispute the official story. She has raised the ire of some GCT's. It's also made her a target for ridicule, such as here on this forum. Like you said, freedom of speech is important. You're frustrated because her statements weren't challenged at that time. But it's nothing more than someone voicing their opinion. I'm not really familiar with Rosie O'Donnell, or know what she does, or if she's smart or dumb. But does it really warrant personal attacks that - from what I can see - have nothing to do with the issues she's raised?
|
|