Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

I think you have a serious case of ''whooshing'' going on in...

First 594 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Budweiser54

2,908 Posts.

221

14/05/24

14:04

Post #: 73816693
Share

Originally posted by Bananabender1: ↑

I have explained that several times before Bud. It doesn't seem to be sinking in. The fuel fire was limited to the lower 2 levels which was where the inferno was. Don't be confused by the "whoosh" of burning fuel on the exterior on impact, as that doesn't last long . The ongoing fire on the lower 2 levels is the focus. Also remember that the upper floors didn't collapse until after the firies began ouring tonnes of water into the place. From memory I think it was around 45 mins after the crash? So if you get a handle of the time lines and the location of the impact the questions you ask become clearer. The upper 3 floors weren't subjected to the same damage or subsequent fire that the lower 2 floors were, which resulted in the internal walls etc and steel furniture etc looking in far better condition. You need to look at the signs. Remember all that water would also result in washing any soot or smoke residue from the upper walls.

Expand

I think you have a serious case of ''whooshing'' going on in your head.

Just because you try and exlain something a few times does not make it right - as in this case.

I do look at the signs - that's why your explanation is to say the least..... laughable.

WTC7 came down without any plane touching it but walls on the upper floors of the Pentagon remain untouched after a plane crashed into it. Only some misguided dunce like you could believe this without questioning it
3 Upvote

Reply