sheeples guide to WTC7

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

is this what NIST will say to?

if you watch this clip it trys to explain wtc7 collapse and you'll notice it gives almost the same reason as the towers Confused

debris from wtc 1 and 2 collapse knocked of fireproofing Confused

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVSxeJH_RCY

worth a watch to prepare yourself for the bull that NIST will release i just know it will be the same as this.

Jerry · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: WTC 7

Nice post, still disturbs me that these so called educated people try and propose the proposterous.

Bye the bye, have you seen my recent post titled WTC 7?

Regards Jerry.

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject:

Anybody want to test their Italian?

malcks · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject:

another load of bull about fires!!

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject:

Building 7 “Debunking” Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

I’ve been directed to this video as it purports to debunk the controlled demolition claims. I can’t believe that it’s just been discovered. It must have done the rounds before.

To me, it doesn’t show anything that I didn’t already know; i.e.

1) Isolated fires on a few floors

2) Smoke in front of the south face, most of which probably came from the burning Buildings 5 and 6 which were across the street

3) Damage to the south-west corner

What do other people think of it?

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:41 am Post subject:

Thanks Marky. I can't believe people think this rubbish debunks anything. This is what I posted in reply:

It doesn't show anything that I didn't already know; i.e.

1) Isolated fires on a few floors

2) Smoke in front of the south face, most of which probably came from the burning Buildings 5 and 6 which were across the street

3) Damage to the south-west corner

The photograph showing the damage is of the south-west corner. NIST have photographs of the south-west corner damage in Appendix L. But no one is claiming that the south-west corner damage was responsible for the collapse. NIST have assumed 'possible' damage in the central area of the south face. This video does not show that damage.

It may be that this possible damage really was there, but no one seems able to produce photographic evidence of it. It then takes another leap of the imagination to assume that this possible damage severely affected critical columns. And then NIST are left trying to explain why asymmetrical damage would lead to symmetrical collapse.

Taking a few statements from the video:

DDD911 · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject:

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

it is not hard to see why people fall for it though, to people who have been dumbed down these explainations make perfect sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

monopoly to learn geography explains a lot!

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject:

Hello Ignatz – Three points:

1) The video is taken looking at the south-west corner of building 7. Now please select some nearby object (e.g. a cupboard) to represent that corner – and identify the corner, the south side and the west side. Watching the first few seconds of that clip you’ll see that west side nearest the corner is NOT on fire – except for a couple of isolated fires. Looking at the south side nearest the corner you’ll see smoke that looks like it’s pouring from building 7 windows – in horizontal lines. By reference to the cupboard, it should be obvious that we’ve looked at the same space but from two different directions – the west then the south. By looking at this space from the west we have concluded that it is not on fire, but in looking at it from the south we have concluded that it is on fire. I think the “not on fire” wins.

2) the smoke effect can often be seen on mountains where clouds are forced to rise at cliff faces. The cloud can sometimes look like it’s streaming from the rock itself. Watching that clip, it looks like there’s a fairly light breeze blowing south which catches the smoke as it reaches the corner. Hence it looks like it’s coming from Building 7. The horizontal lines are a good indication that the smoke is getting blown around in wind currents rather than coming directly from a fire. If it were coming directly from a fire, it would be very much closer to vertical.

3) there was a third point, but I’m not sure I could be arsed. It’s that you could have just asked me to explain the apparent anomaly – and that would have done. Have a nice day.

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:

Ignatz – I’ve just had a look at some of your other posts and I find you’re a Critic. That would explain everything - massively self-deluding indeed !

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

there is smoke coming out of wtc7, but i would certainly say the majority of it is being blown in the direction of wtc7 from across the street, which is then hugging wtc7 and moveing up the face of the building making the smoke look worse than it actual is from wtc7.

there is certainly not enough visible fire in any video or photo i see to justify smoke pouring from every floor of wtc 7 on one side of the building, especially when the vast majority of windows remain intact.