Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower

uknowist · 7 Jul 2008 at 01:51

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 01:53

Teki187 said:
Of course i was joking, but gold did go missing.

Problem is, you have 2 types of people in this world, people who read the news and people who are told the news.

70% of the UK are told the news, properly an even larger %.

Here's the thing, we have to take most things we're not directly involved in at face value, but even so I'm sure there aren't many who would put their lives against the official line being 100% true, but it is the most plausable explanation we have. There's certainly far more reason to believe the official line than there is to believe the conspiracy theories.

Digging deeper can obviously be a good thing, but reading up on many the wild theories out there is very likely to cloud your judgement.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 01:54

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

Hahahaha that made my day right there.

Unless the plane was literally on its side, the wing tip he's claiming would have been on the same level.

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 01:56

Teki187 said:
But isn't it a huge stretch to say the opposite?

Well no, not if you assume like i said, they have x ray vision and can assess the entire building from one floor. If they don't have x ray vision (or some other ability to scan the entire building in one go) then it's pretty safe to assume they're talking about their immediate surroundings.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 01:58

wedgie said:
Here's the thing, we have to take most things we're not directly involved in at face value, but even so I'm sure there aren't many who would put their lives against the official line being 100% true, but it is the most plausable explanation we have. There's certainly far more reason to believe the official line than there is to believe the conspiracy theories.

Digging deeper can obviously be a good thing, but reading up on many the wild theories out there is very likely to cloud your judgement.

Well i've always thought something else went on, i've never believed the official story and never will.

I will not believe some fanatic in a cave managed to infiltrate the largest super power on the globe, train pilots in there own country for x amount of months, then steal a plane and get away with it. Just waiting for a UFO tombola hat to come flying around shooting all the F-16s sent to shoot the planes down.

uknowist · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:02

Teki187 said:
It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

Hahahaha that made my day right there.

Unless the plane was literally on its side, the wing tip he's claiming would have been on the same level.

what?

the plane entered WTC 2 at and angle(if your trying to say it entered directly straight)

if thats not what u mean, i dont get what your on about

Greenlizard0 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:04

*Hasn't read entire thread*

I saw a programme a while back and two reasons why it stuck in my head. First it was set in Liverpool, and they filmed the test on the interviewer in a building I pass almost everyday.

The second is the little psychological test they ran which demonstrated that people like the maddest / most "out there" explanation available for an event and some are more likely to believe it over what really happened. Something as big as 9/11 is bound to get certain people excited.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:08

Greenlizard0 said:
The second is the little psychological test they ran which demonstrated that people like the maddest / most "out there" explanation available for an event and some are more likely to believe it over what really happened. Something as big as 9/11 is bound to get certain people excited.

I'll ask my girlfriend about that, shes in her 3rd year Psychology.

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:11

Greenlizard0 said:
*Hasn't read entire thread*

I saw a programme a while back and two reasons why it stuck in my head. First it was set in Liverpool, and they filmed the test on the interviewer in a building I pass almost everyday.

The second is the little psychological test they ran which demonstrated that people like the maddest / most "out there" explanation available for an event and some are more likely to believe it over what really happened. Something as big as 9/11 is bound to get certain people excited.

That's the big problem, we're probably all fascinated with conspiracy theories, but some people are motivated only by the desire to prove them, not find the truth. People with common sense judge the facts, not only based on their number but also their relavance.

Teki187 said:
Well i've always thought something else went on, i've never believed the official story and never will.

You see, that's not someone looking to assess all evidence available, that's someone looking only to prove their theory.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:14

uknowist said:
what?

the plane entered WTC 2 at and angle(if your trying to say it entered directly straight)

if thats not what u mean, i dont get what your on about

So it was slightly on its side. Ok lets go with that.

He was on the 78th floor.

In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

Source - http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm

He was 2 floors below fire so hot it apparently melted steel, yet he only saw 2 small isolated fires and mentioned nothing of this blazing inferno?

Surely the holes made by the wing tips would have been more then enough to let the molten steel pour into that floor? Surely the heat from the melting steel and the fire would have made temperatures far in excess of what the human body can withstand?

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:15

Teki187 said:
I'll ask my girlfriend about that, shes in her 3rd year Psychology.

Do you doubt it? Do you think the millions of UFO and alien abduction stories don't show this to be the case? Not to mention the current 'Some one spiked my drink last night' thread.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:16

wedgie said:
You see, that's not someone looking to assess all evidence available, that's someone looking only to prove their theory.

I've read the official report, i've read the debunkers, the de-de bunkers, i've read like hours upon hours of transcripts, MIT graduates blah blah.

The official story is complete crap.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:17

wedgie said:
Do you doubt it? Do you think the millions of UFO and alien abduction stories don't show this to be the case? Not to mention the current 'Some one spiked my drink last night' thread.

No i dont, but i trust my girlfriend and shes on course for a first, so im sure she'll probably just back up what your saying, but no offence intended i trust her more then someone back street psychologist.

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:19

Teki187 said:
I've read the official report, i've read the debunkers, the de-de bunkers, i've read like hours upon hours of transcripts, MIT graduates blah blah.

The official story is complete crap.

Fine, show us the evidence for this. Show us the water tight proof that shows the very strong evidence otherwise to be untrue.

Show me that and I'll believe it. You see, I'll go where the evidence does, not where I would like to believe it does.

wedgie · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:22

Teki187 said:
No i dont, but i trust my girlfriend and shes on course for a first, so im sure she'll probably just back up what your saying, but no offence intended i trust her more then someone back street psychologist.

I doubt the test that Greenlizard0 was talking about was done by a back street psychologist.

Greenlizard0 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:22

Teki187 said:
I'll ask my girlfriend about that, shes in her 3rd year Psychology.

I'd like more explanation too - if you ask her let us know

wedgie said:
That's the big problem, we're probably all fascinated with conspiracy theories, but some people are motivated only by the desire to prove them, not find the truth. People with common sense judge the facts, not only based on their number but also their relavance.

On the old course the story that Dr Cox told in scrubs more often than not holds. When we sat with consultants discussing cases we've just interviewed in hospitals they often told us that the most simple and non glamorous explanation was the best. Don't waste time with something more elaborate in the hope that it might turn out.

Dr Cox in "The Balencing Act" said:
Dr. Cox: It's a diagnosis of a ridiculously obscure disease when it's much more likely that the patient has a common illness presenting with uncommon symptoms, in other words, if you hear hoof beats, you just go ahead and think horsies and not zebras, mkay mister silly bear?

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:23

wedgie said:
Fine, show us the evidence for this. Show us the water tight proof that shows the very strong evidence otherwise to be untrue.

Show me that and I'll believe it. You see, I'll go where the evidence does, not where I would like to believe it does.

I've said this before, im not going to copy and paste the links, information and websites to prove that what i believe in is worthy of others to believe in.

Everyone has there own opinions, the information is out there, you can find it and you can make up your own mind.

Greenlizard0 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:24

Teki187 said:
... back street psychologist.

No the psychologist was if memory serves me correct a member of staff within the university.

Teki187 · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:26

Greenlizard0 said:
No the psychologist was if memory serves me correct a member of staff within the university.

A red brick i hope.

Off to bed. Have fun.

uknowist · 7 Jul 2008 at 02:27

Teki187 said:
So it was slightly on its side. Ok lets go with that.

He was on the 78th floor.

Source - http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm

He was 2 floors below fire so hot it apparently melted steel, yet he only saw 2 small isolated fires and mentioned nothing of this blazing inferno?

Surely the holes made by the wing tips would have been more then enough to let the molten steel pour into that floor? Surely the heat from the melting steel and the fire would have made temperatures far in excess of what the human body can withstand?

yes slightly on its side which meant the impact zone ran from the 78th to the 84th floor.

you also dont know at what part of the 78th floor he is in.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

I think this explains the apparent molten metal, it could well have been the fuel from the jet liner pouring out and on fire, which is what happened when a plane hit the empire state building in 1945