what happened on 9/11/2001?

[daws101]

look familiar anybody?

Sure does. That is a pretty typical result of steel impacted by fire that burned out of control for many, many hours. Your point?

it looks exactly like your favorite photo...logic says the same kind of conditions produce similar effects.

:no, it doesn't look the same. Anyone who knows anything about steel would deduce that. Best of all, Bankers Trust wasn't on fire, nimrod. It was hit by falling debris.

ANOTHER SWING AND A MISS, DAWS!

there were fires in the bankers trust

Deutsche Bank Building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Coordinates:

40°42′35″N 74°00′48″W / 40.70972°N 74.01333°W / 40.70972; -74.01333
This article is about the former New York building. For the current New York building, see 60 Wall Street. For the Frankfurt building, see Deutsche Bank Twin Towers. For the Sydney building, see Deutsche Bank Place.
Deutsche Bank Building

View from the Southeast in 1997.
Alternative names

• Bankers Trust Plaza
• 130 Liberty Street

General information
Status Destroyed
Type Commercial Office
Location 130 Liberty Street, Manhattan, New York 10007
Construction started 1971
Completed 1973
Opening 1974
Demolished 2011
Cost $120 million (1973 USD)
Height
Roof 157.6 m (517 ft)
Technical details
Floor count 39
Design and construction
Architect Shreve, Lamb and Harmon
Developer Bankers Trust
Structural engineer The Office of James Ruderman
Main contractor Turner Construction Company
References
[1][2]

Overview of the site following the attacks. The Deutsche Bank Building is visible behind an angled red crane.
The Deutsche Bank Building was a skyscraper at 130 Liberty Street in New York City, United States, adjacent to the World Trade Center (WTC). The building, which existed from 1974–2007, was designed by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which also designed the Empire State Building and Peterson & Brickbauer.
Opened in 1974 as Bankers Trust Plaza, the building was acquired by Deutsche Bank when it acquired Bankers Trust in 1998. It was part of the skyline of Lower Manhattan. The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11 attacks in 2001 after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust, and asbestos that spread from the collapse of the South Tower. Five World Trade Center will eventually replace the building, expanding the ground space on which the World Trade Center stands, as this land was not part of the original World Trade Center. The structure has since been completely dismantled, clearing the way for the construction of 5 World Trade Center and the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Demolition
• 2 Future
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

Demolition[edit]

Detail of gash in the facade imparted by the collapsing World Trade Center. A segment of WTC facade is visible hanging from the gash.
The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss.[3] Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.
In September 2005 human remains were found on the roof.[4] In March 2006, construction workers who were removing toxic waste from the building before deconstruction found more bone fragments and remains. This prompted calls from victims' family members for another search of the building by forensic experts. In 2006, between April 7 to April 14, more than 700 human bone fragments were discovered in the ballast gravel on the roof. Workers sifted through the gravel to find more remains.
The cost of this deconstruction had steadily increased to $75 million by the Bovis Lend Lease construction company as large amounts of toxic dust associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center, asbestos, dioxin, lead, silica, quartz, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and manganese had been found in the building.[5]
In 2004, an agreement was announced to settle the disposition of the building and insurance claims. Later that year as part of this agreement, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation acquired the land and commenced its deconstruction.[6] An Associated Press December 7, 2006 report indicated that the building would be dismantled. The report indicated that area residents were fearful of possibly toxic dust associated with the two towers' collapses within the building.[7]
On May 17, 2007, work was halted after a 22-foot section of pipe being cut by workers fell 35 stories and through the roof of "The Ten House", home to Engine 10 and Ladder 10 of the Fire Department of New York. Two firefighters were injured by the original falling debris, although they were not struck by the pipe itself.[8]
Deutsche Bank Building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even your own link doesn't support your claim.

STRIKE #, DAWS! YOU'RE OUT.

false that kind of damage causes fires, also just look at the windows on either side of the gash

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure does. That is a pretty typical result of steel impacted by fire that burned out of control for many, many hours. Your point?

it looks exactly like your favorite photo...logic says the same kind of conditions produce similar effects.

:no, it doesn't look the same. Anyone who knows anything about steel would deduce that. Best of all, Bankers Trust wasn't on fire, nimrod. It was hit by falling debris.

ANOTHER SWING AND A MISS, DAWS!

there were fires in the bankers trust

Deutsche Bank Building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Coordinates:

40°42′35″N 74°00′48″W / 40.70972°N 74.01333°W / 40.70972; -74.01333
This article is about the former New York building. For the current New York building, see 60 Wall Street. For the Frankfurt building, see Deutsche Bank Twin Towers. For the Sydney building, see Deutsche Bank Place.
Deutsche Bank Building

View from the Southeast in 1997.
Alternative names

• Bankers Trust Plaza
• 130 Liberty Street

General information
Status Destroyed
Type Commercial Office
Location 130 Liberty Street, Manhattan, New York 10007
Construction started 1971
Completed 1973
Opening 1974
Demolished 2011
Cost $120 million (1973 USD)
Height
Roof 157.6 m (517 ft)
Technical details
Floor count 39
Design and construction
Architect Shreve, Lamb and Harmon
Developer Bankers Trust
Structural engineer The Office of James Ruderman
Main contractor Turner Construction Company
References
[1][2]

Overview of the site following the attacks. The Deutsche Bank Building is visible behind an angled red crane.
The Deutsche Bank Building was a skyscraper at 130 Liberty Street in New York City, United States, adjacent to the World Trade Center (WTC). The building, which existed from 1974–2007, was designed by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon which also designed the Empire State Building and Peterson & Brickbauer.
Opened in 1974 as Bankers Trust Plaza, the building was acquired by Deutsche Bank when it acquired Bankers Trust in 1998. It was part of the skyline of Lower Manhattan. The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged in the September 11 attacks in 2001 after being blasted by the avalanche of debris, ash, dust, and asbestos that spread from the collapse of the South Tower. Five World Trade Center will eventually replace the building, expanding the ground space on which the World Trade Center stands, as this land was not part of the original World Trade Center. The structure has since been completely dismantled, clearing the way for the construction of 5 World Trade Center and the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Demolition
• 2 Future
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

Demolition[edit]

Detail of gash in the facade imparted by the collapsing World Trade Center. A segment of WTC facade is visible hanging from the gash.
The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss.[3] Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.
In September 2005 human remains were found on the roof.[4] In March 2006, construction workers who were removing toxic waste from the building before deconstruction found more bone fragments and remains. This prompted calls from victims' family members for another search of the building by forensic experts. In 2006, between April 7 to April 14, more than 700 human bone fragments were discovered in the ballast gravel on the roof. Workers sifted through the gravel to find more remains.
The cost of this deconstruction had steadily increased to $75 million by the Bovis Lend Lease construction company as large amounts of toxic dust associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center, asbestos, dioxin, lead, silica, quartz, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and manganese had been found in the building.[5]
In 2004, an agreement was announced to settle the disposition of the building and insurance claims. Later that year as part of this agreement, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation acquired the land and commenced its deconstruction.[6] An Associated Press December 7, 2006 report indicated that the building would be dismantled. The report indicated that area residents were fearful of possibly toxic dust associated with the two towers' collapses within the building.[7]
On May 17, 2007, work was halted after a 22-foot section of pipe being cut by workers fell 35 stories and through the roof of "The Ten House", home to Engine 10 and Ladder 10 of the Fire Department of New York. Two firefighters were injured by the original falling debris, although they were not struck by the pipe itself.[8]
Deutsche Bank Building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even your own link doesn't support your claim.

STRIKE #, DAWS! YOU'RE OUT.

false that kind of damage cause fire also just look at the windows on either side of the gash

ANOTHER SWING AND A MISS! If it was on fire, prove it. It should be easy to do. According to your cited source - "The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.

Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.

Chapter 6 - Bankers Trust Building - The WTC Report.

Only a mirror remains of the report unless one has a hard copy (which I do).

6.5 Fireproofing

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building.


Glad to help, Daws. Now, you wanna take another swing?

 

[n0spam4me]

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

 

[Jackinthebox]

I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited.

Although I was not there on 9/11, a man from my own firehouse is one of the 343 and his brother who was also there was one of my department officers. I have also spoken with dozens, if not hundreds of FF's who where there that day. Their accounts reveal all sorts of disturbing revelations.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

No. Because you're starting your preposition with a conclusion - that the buildings were demolished through conventional demolition techniques. If the planes were responsible for the collapses, coupled with the ever completely shaky wtc7 fire induced, then we could account for partial collapse under what we know and can then prove with what we have.

But you're making an implication right off the bat - that planned demolition took place.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

Even if damage combined with fire did cause collapse, it would have only been partial. You would have seen the tops of the Towers fall off into the streets and buildings below.

WTC 7 would have wound up looking something like this.

 

[Jackinthebox]

We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.

Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground

 

[TakeAStepBack]

unless discussing actual science about the event, choose to avoid using the term collapse. If you watch what happened enough and understand it enough wtc1+2 did something much different than collapse

 

[n0spam4me]

Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

No. Because you're starting your preposition with a conclusion - that the buildings were demolished through conventional demolition techniques. If the planes were responsible for the collapses, coupled with the ever completely shaky wtc7 fire induced, then we could account for partial collapse under what we know and can then prove with what we have.

But you're making an implication right off the bat - that planned demolition took place.

In regards to a planned demolition, I don't care if it was thermite, or termites or atomic bombs, black powder, or what, the bottom line is that the event was made to happen, WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed because somebody intended for them to be destroyed, the exactly how ..... is a completely separate discussion.

are we clear on this? ....

questions? ........

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Conventional demolition does not account for what happened. There are way too many inconsistencies with that theory.

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

No. Because you're starting your preposition with a conclusion - that the buildings were demolished through conventional demolition techniques. If the planes were responsible for the collapses, coupled with the ever completely shaky wtc7 fire induced, then we could account for partial collapse under what we know and can then prove with what we have.

But you're making an implication right off the bat - that planned demolition took place.

In regards to a planned demolition, I don't care if it was thermite, or termites or atomic bombs, black powder, or what, the bottom line is that the event was made to happen, WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed because somebody intended for them to be destroyed, the exactly how ..... is a completely separate discussion.

are we clear on this? ....

questions? ........

Whatever. This is a what happened thread not a 'it was planned so the only thing left to ask is who dun it' thread.

 

[deep_space]

journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.

This is exactly what I meant ..... crude exaggeration ..... Popular Mechanics.

 

[daws101]

It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.

Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.

Chapter 6 - Bankers Trust Building - The WTC Report.

Only a mirror remains of the report unless one has a hard copy (which I do).

6.5 Fireproofing

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building.


Glad to help, Daws. Now, you wanna take another swing?

so you agree there were fires. just not large enough to cause major structural damage?

the subject of your favorite photo is not major and btw :
Mission
9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.
We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

Who We Are
9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

• Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
• Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
• Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.
Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

your report is a second hand account from a non credible site.

there are no engineers or builders or qualified scientist among it ranks.
as wit all Truth sites it is a steaming pile of speculation.
almost forgot, your claim was there were NO FIRES at all in the bankers trust that is false.
and that was my point.

 

[daws101]

Just my $0.02 worth here while the rest of the thread threatens to become mired in minutia.

Please consider this, a controlled demolition completely demolishes the building, a poorly planned/executed job, produces less than complete demolition. Note that for WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete demolition.

Do you see what the implications of this are?

false!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.

Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.

Chapter 6 - Bankers Trust Building - The WTC Report.

Only a mirror remains of the report unless one has a hard copy (which I do).

6.5 Fireproofing

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building.


Glad to help, Daws. Now, you wanna take another swing?

so you agree there were fires. just not large enough to cause major structural damage?

the subject of your favorite photo is not major and btw :
Mission
9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.
We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

Who We Are
9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

• Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
• Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
• Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.
Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

your report is a second hand account from a non credible site.

there are no engineers or builders or qualified scientist among it ranks.
as wit all Truth sites it is a steaming pile of speculation.

No, I do not agree, you fucking moron. Are you now arguing that FEMA is lying, or are you trying to weazel your way out of a fucking loss here?


SWING AND A MISS!

 

[daws101]

It looks like Daws is having trouble trying to manufacture fires in the Banker's Trust building.

Here is The FEMA report regarding the building and it's damage. FEMA concluded no fires in combination with the architectural damage from falling debris.

Chapter 6 - Bankers Trust Building - The WTC Report.

Only a mirror remains of the report unless one has a hard copy (which I do).

6.5 Fireproofing

The structural steel sections were fireproofed with a spray-applied non-asbestos fireproofing material. The thickness on the beam flanges was observed to be on the order of 1/2 inch thick. Many of the rolled steel shapes appeared to be almost completely bare of fireproofing where directly impacted by debris; the remainder of the fireproofing appeared intact even in the damaged areas. Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage, the damaged fireproofing did not affect the performance of the building.


Glad to help, Daws. Now, you wanna take another swing?

so you agree there were fires. just not large enough to cause major structural damage?

the subject of your favorite photo is not major and btw :
Mission
9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.
We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

Who We Are
9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

• Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
• Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
• Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.
Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

your report is a second hand account from a non credible site.

there are no engineers or builders or qualified scientist among it ranks.
as wit all Truth sites it is a steaming pile of speculation.

No, I do not agree, you fucking moron. Are you now arguing that FEMA is lying, or are you trying to weazel your way out of a fucking loss here?


SWING AND A MISS!

bullshit ! no fema is not lying ,you are reading in what you want to see from this statement Because fires were not ignited in combination with this structural damage
fema is not saying there were no fires they are saying the fires were not large enough to cause major structural damage.
how can I weasel out of an argument you guys lost 14 years ago.?
btw nice dodge around the zero credibility of your source

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I was a firefighter for six years. There is no way that fire brought down those buildings, even with the structural damage. Not the way they came down. You may have seen partial collapse in the affected zones, but you would have never seen global collapse of a steel structure that was not fully engulfed in a very high temp inferno. The Twin Towers, the black smoke indicates a very low temp burn, unlikely to affect steel. The fires in 7 were ever more limited.

Although I was not there on 9/11, a man from my own firehouse is one of the 343 and his brother who was also there was one of my department officers. I have also spoken with dozens, if not hundreds of FF's who where there that day. Their accounts reveal all sorts of disturbing revelations.

Black smoke indicates low temps, huh?





Those don't look like low temp fires to me.

 

[daws101]

Yeah, no fire ignition. In other words - no fire. Apparently your comprehension is even more poor than your deduction.

wrong again.