houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

This was misquoted as I never posted such a statement and is another
lame attempt to discredit me. For future reference I don't use the *
symbol as a modifier, or to place emphasis on a word in a given
sentence. I do find it most interesting that you chose this misquoted
material to question whether or not I am a human.

The only thing that is/was laregly uncontrollable is the mindless
diatribe that you and your cohorts have taken upon yourselves to
unleash like a plague. Stand upon your virtual soapboxes and beat your
make believe chests while proclaiming victory against imaginary foes.

Aren't you a real person? Didn't you claim that the fire could
not possibly be hot enough to weaken the steel enough to
cause it to fail?

If you can't watch the footage and see for yourself the fireball
expoding outside the WTC, then I'm afraid you are ignoring the obvious
and most compelling evidence that exists.

OK. Your latest claim is that most of the fuel must have
burned outside the buildings because of the huge fireball
that can be seen.

You seem to infer that little fuel has actually penetrated
inside of the building. This is hard to believe given the
extensive breach at the entry point and the forward
momentum of the fuel tanks.

The momentum was clearly more lateral than forward. The damage to the
WTC was clearly lessened by the bad angle at which it was hit. Are you
trying to say that more fuel was doused into the building because of
the bad angle? I don't follow you here. The footage of the first tower
being struck would indicate a much better result as far as damage to
the first tower. Yet the second tower fell far quicker, which I am sure
can easily be explained away with a mirror and a little smoke.

But the biggest flaw in your interpretation of the footages
is manifest in those very images. Didn't you notice
that the fireball at the exit point is almost as big as the
fireball at the entry point? Clearly much fuel must have
made it through. Could it have gone through without also
dousing the walls, furnitures, etc?

Sure, burning for about 3 or 4 minutes and that would be the extent of
it.

Since it doesn't fit your
story, I'm not the least bit surprised.

What does not fit my story? I said nothing about jet
fuel except that none of it is required for the fire to reach
temperatures in excess of 650C -- burning paper and
furniture are enough -- and that it contributed to the fire
being spread fast on a wide area. This is something nobody
disputes.

There are plenty of people who will dispute that a garden variety fire
could bring down a tower of the WTC.

And since not one of you
low-life status quo seeking propaganda artists have addressed my
original post in this thread, shall I assume that you couldn't find
even the smallest hole from which to dig in and pry it apart?

This post was a recollections of your memories of the live coverage
of the events of 9/11. You claim that no main news network reported
a jet (did you watch them all at once?) and that most only talked
about a small plane or Cessna before the second jet hit. You
advance this a an indications of a conspiracy the bulk of the media
were a part off. This claim is bizarre.

Yes I did watch all of them at once, as a matter of fact. They were all
breaking for commercial with unusual frequency. Call my claims bizarre
if you want to. The fact remains that such a tragedy could occur in New
York City and be mis-reported for almost 30 minutes. Most Americans
were caught off guard or not paying attention.

But is it possible you memories are fuzzy?

Not at all. I was upset immediately and fully aware of the significance
of what I had just witnessed. It made me sick to my stomach knowing the
media and the perpetrators were in bed together.

Your recollection of the coverage :

"CNN and FOX News were  repeating the same sketchy account
of this mystery Cessna"

The only mention of a Cessna in the CNN transcipt of the live
coverage on that day:

"This all began at about 8:48 this morning. Again, what we know
in case you are just joining us, a small plane, not a Cessna-type
or five or six seater, but instead, perhaps a passenger flight ran
into the north side of the World Trade Center."

The transcripts have been modified. So have the timelines. The events
outlined in my original post is exactly the way 9/11 was presented to
America by the mass media.
If you were not watching the live broadcasts, I'm afraid you're left
with some tough decisions. I don't have anything to gain by making
false claims about how 9/11 was reported.

And much earlier :

"MURTAGH: I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be
cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude over New York City,
and it appears to have crashed into -- I don't know which tower
it is -- but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade
Center towers.

LIN: Sean, what kind of plane was it? Was it a small plane, a jet?

MURTAGH: It was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737."

Interestingly, you also claim in this post that:

"Inside the tower, many were killed instantly by the impact
and explosion. Others were less fortunate; trapped and/or
clinging to life while burning to death  and/or suffocating from
the smoke and fumes created by thousands of  gallons of burning
jet fuel."

Isn't that hardly consistent with your present claims?

The footage of the first tower being struck would indicate a straight
on impact. The damage and the ensuing fires would have been more
intense that the result achieved with the second tower. Also, the first
"attack" was totally unexpected, so loss of life to a much greater
degree would be assumed. The point I was making is that CNN and FOX
both have offices in NYC and knew full well what had just happened; but
niether reported the facts.