| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | Building 7 “Debunking” Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY
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? |
Whatever else you might think about WTC7, the highlighted part of your post marks you out as massively self-deluding. The smoke is seen very clearly issuing from WTC7 itself in almost horizontal lines, left to right. Just as it is in several other videos and photos, in fact
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: |
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.
|
There's no sign whatsoever of rising smoke. Just smoke heading straight from the building.
Exactly one line of smoke per floor, in fact.
This is where you can choose to be rational. Just admit that the smoke we can see is coming out of the building. From the smashed windows.
Is that so hard?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | | Quote: | | There's no sign whatsoever of rising smoke. |
Which demonstrates that the smoke has cooled.
i.e. it has not just come directly from a fire, because smoke that comes directly from a fire is usually hot.
Therefore, the fires are probably somewhere else. |
There is horizontal smoke issuing from each floor of WTC7, although there was only a moderate breeze.
Your theory appears to be :
The smoke was produced from WTC5+6 or somewhere downwind....
It moved against the wind and ...
Got sucked into the base of WTC7
Moved up inside WTC7
Then was belched out horizontally, for no good reason
Please get an education. Remedial and evening classes are available in many subjects, including GCSE science.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
ok a few questions.
1a, was any other buildings on fire or emiting smoke in the area other than wtc7?
1b, if so how close to wtc7 were these buildings?
2, is it possible for smoke to be blown gently in a certain direction?
3a, is it possible for smoke to mix with smoke from other fires?
3b, if this happened and you took all photos at an angle to only show WTC7 would the smoke coming from WTC7 look worse than it actually is?
is this a possibility? going by photo and video evidence of fires seen at WTC7 how badly would you say the building was effected by fire?
there is certainly smoke coming from WTC7 but when you watch the video and dont look at selective stills, there is clearly smoke across from WTC7 and you see it moving in the direction of WTC7(scene where he is showing the hole obscured by heavy smoke coming from both sides), also when they show the building a very large amount of windows are not even broken, the only ones i see broken are the ones on the nearest corner and only a few at that.
smoke coming out of the nearest corner also gives the illusion(in the picture above) from the angle the whole face of the building has smoke coming out of it.
when the camera gets closer its obvious only one corner is effected and no other fire is seen other than the corner.
i can only go by what is in the video so if there are other fires elsewhere we dont see them. eitherway nothing ive seen so far even gets close to a raging inferno or a building fully developed in fire. there are a few isolated fires in the building and nothing shows a whole building on fire or anything near it not even when it collapsed.
they are also spraying water on another building nearby, and apparently they had no water to put out WTC7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | ok a few questions.
1a, was any other buildings on fire or emiting smoke in the area other than wtc7?
1b, if so how close to wtc7 were these buildings?
2, is it possible for smoke to be blown gently in a certain direction?
3a, is it possible for smoke to mix with smoke from other fires?
3b, if this happened and you took all photos at an angle to only show WTC7 would the smoke coming from WTC7 look worse than it actually is?
is this a possibility? going by photo and video evidence of fires seen at WTC7 how badly would you say the building was effected by fire?
there is certainly smoke coming from WTC7 but when you watch the video and dont look at selective stills, there is clearly smoke across from WTC7 and you see it moving in the direction of WTC7(scene where he is showing the hole obscured by heavy smoke coming from both sides), also when they show the building a very large amount of windows are not even broken, the only ones i see broken are the ones on the nearest corner and only a few at that.
smoke coming out of the nearest corner also gives the illusion(in the picture above) from the angle the whole face of the building has smoke coming out of it.
when the camera gets closer its obvious only one corner is effected and no other fire is seen other than the corner.
i can only go by what is in the video so if there are other fires elsewhere we dont see them. eitherway nothing ive seen so far even gets close to a raging inferno or a building fully developed in fire. there are a few isolated fires in the building and nothing shows a whole building on fire or anything near it not even when it collapsed.
they are also spraying water on another building nearby, and apparently they had no water to put out WTC7. |
All the information you need to answer these questions is already out there, in the public domain.
Weather reports, photos, videos, testimony .... all you need.
Meanwhile ...
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is certainly smoke coming from WTC7 but when you watch the video and dont look at selective stills, there is clearly smoke across from WTC7 and you see it moving in the direction of WTC7(scene where he is showing the hole obscured by heavy smoke coming from both sides), also when they show the building a very large amount of windows are not even broken, the only ones i see broken are the ones on the nearest corner and only a few at that.
smoke coming out of the nearest corner also gives the illusion(in the picture above) from the angle the whole face of the building has smoke coming out of it.
repeated from above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | there is certainly smoke coming from WTC7 but when you watch the video and dont look at selective stills, there is clearly smoke across from WTC7 and you see it moving in the direction of WTC7(scene where he is showing the hole obscured by heavy smoke coming from both sides), also when they show the building a very large amount of windows are not even broken, the only ones i see broken are the ones on the nearest corner and only a few at that.
smoke coming out of the nearest corner also gives the illusion(in the picture above) from the angle the whole face of the building has smoke coming out of it.
repeated from above. |
The S side of WTC7 was devastated by debris from WTC1. You think only the corner windows were broken?
Once again, lines of smoke can be seen issuing from WTC7 :
The wind was from the NW, which would blow smoke from WTC5+6 away from WTC7.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
im not denying wtc7 wasnt damaged or that it had some small fires and smoke. however i am questioning the extent of this damage and fires, and think a lot of these photos are misleading.
they always show wtc7 at an angle and always the same angles, where the nearest corner is the closest point where there was fire and makes the building look like the whole face has smoke pouring out of it.
but when you watch the video above this isnt the case.
where are the photos showing the face of the building head on as a pose to an angle to give a true picture of where the smoke is coming from and how much of the building is effected?
the pictures do not show the behaviour of the smoke although have to agree it is blowing away from WTC7 once the heat has made the smoke rise high enough, that dosnt stop smoke mixing at ground level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| im not denying that wtc7 "was" damaged (correction above to late to edit.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | im not denying wtc7 wasnt damaged or that it had some small fires and smoke. however i am questioning the extent of this damage and fires, and think a lot of these photos are misleading.
they always show wtc7 at an angle and always the same angles, where the nearest corner is the closest point where there was fire and makes the building look like the whole face has smoke pouring out of it.
but when you watch the video above this isnt the case.
where are the photos showing the face of the building head on as a pose to an angle to give a true picture of where the smoke is coming from and how much of the building is effected?
the pictures do not show the behaviour of the smoke although have to agree it is blowing away from WTC7 once the heat has made the smoke rise high enough, that dosnt stop smoke mixing at ground level. |
By "they" I assume you mean the photographers.
Well, if they'd been to the East, they'd have been in the smoke plume or photographing up into the smoke. Not much point either way.
If they'd been to the South of WTC7 they'd have been in the middle of GZ, and we can't really blame "them" for not venturing there eh?
You seem determined to deny the very plain physical evidence that's being put right in front of your eyes, in both film and photos. Why are you so determined? Do you feel it would be a sign of weakness?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | im not denying wtc7 wasnt damaged or that it had some small fires and smoke. however i am questioning the extent of this damage and fires, and think a lot of these photos are misleading.
they always show wtc7 at an angle and always the same angles, where the nearest corner is the closest point where there was fire and makes the building look like the whole face has smoke pouring out of it.
but when you watch the video above this isnt the case.
where are the photos showing the face of the building head on as a pose to an angle to give a true picture of where the smoke is coming from and how much of the building is effected?
the pictures do not show the behaviour of the smoke although have to agree it is blowing away from WTC7 once the heat has made the smoke rise high enough, that dosnt stop smoke mixing at ground level. |
By "they" I assume you mean the photographers.
Well, if they'd been to the East, they'd have been in the smoke plume or photographing up into the smoke. Not much point either way.
If they'd been to the South of WTC7 they'd have been in the middle of GZ, and we can't really blame "them" for not venturing there eh?
You seem determined to deny the very plain physical evidence that's being put right in front of your eyes, in both film and photos. Why are you so determined? Do you feel it would be a sign of weakness? |
what plain physical evidence? the pictures are very misleading for the reasons stated above. why always the one angle? why not a square on picture? you say photographers dont want to stand at GZ but they were taking pictures of that anyway. the video above shows the extent of the damage anyway and you can clearly see its the nearest corner causing the smoke and not the whole building. where as the pictures from the angle suggest the whole building which is why critics prefer them and why they are misleading.
if i saw one picture face on with the building and you could tell clearly the smoke is coming from everywhere inside WTC7 and not the corner like the video shows i would concede the fires were proberbly worse than what i see evidence for by taking into account every picture and video and not a misleading photo at the angle with smoke coming out the corner and making it seem like the whole of the building has smoke pouring out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some thoughts for you Marky -
Where would a photographer have to have been to get the angle that would convince you?
If a photographer had been in the right place, what would have been between the photographer and WTC7, on 9/11 ?
If in that place, with smoke also gushing from the centre of WTC7 (say), would the photo have shown that smoke, or would it have been behind the smoke coming from the W edge? (think wind direction here)
Is the lack of photographic evidence that suits you , over 5 years later sat at a PC, any indication that the FDNY testimony was wrong?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Here are some thoughts for you Marky -
Where would a photographer have to have been to get the angle that would convince you?
If a photographer had been in the right place, what would have been between the photographer and WTC7, on 9/11 ?
If in that place, with smoke also gushing from the centre of WTC7 (say), would the photo have shown that smoke, or would it have been behind the smoke coming from the W edge? (think wind direction here)
Is the lack of photographic evidence that suits you , over 5 years later sat at a PC, any indication that the FDNY testimony was wrong? |
there is plenty of photographic evidence that shows little fire at WTC7.
there are photos that show smoke but all taken from the angle which is misleading.
the corner is on fire not the whole face of the building. untill i see a photo that proves otherwise i have to wonder about the FDNY testimony(ie is he right or wrong is it false or true). i have no way of knowing if the testimony is a fony or not, hence a photo to back it up one way or the other. if a photo dosnt exsist then im left with no evidence the building was badly on fire other than the smoky photos above from the angle which are misleading as the video clearly showed the effected floors being in that corner, so to me those photos are inconclusive to show HOW effected WTC7 was.
they turn a molehill into a mountain from what ive seen so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, so we've got photographic evidence of masses of smoke coming out of the building, photographs of fires, and expert eyewitness testimony saying that there fires were extensive.
But no evidence. You're still looking for evidence.
They should have put you on BBC.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | there is plenty of photographic evidence that shows little fire at WTC7.
there are photos that show smoke but all taken from the angle which is misleading.
the corner is on fire not the whole face of the building. untill i see a photo that proves otherwise i have to wonder about the FDNY testimony(ie is he right or wrong is it false or true). |
He ?????? Are you so ignorant of this whole subject that you think the testimony comes from one man ????
Read this, all of it, and learn something before you make even more of an idiot of yourself :
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF
...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110018.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110207.PDF
At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110222.PDF
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports03.pdf page 49
[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.
Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?
A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110413.PDF
"And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/91...explosions.wmv
Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.
...And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110261.PDF
The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports04.pdf page 69
"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the blasted car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110103.PDF
Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
...He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too. –Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110022.PDF
I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110117.PDF
I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110055.PDF
We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11...183/index.html
They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations. –Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110167.PDF
There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110098.PDF
My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/p...itchers_t.html
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so the reports of firemen being told to clear the building at 11.30am are?
im pretty sure its one of the reports defending the offical story that says it also.
see this is where things dont make sense with the offical version.
did they predict everything 6 hours in advance before they left the building? or is the claim firemen were ordered to leave the building at 11.30am a lie? if so why lie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heat rises. Flames rise. Therefor the hottest part of the building would have been near the top. The only possible legitimate official explanation has to involve fire weakening the steel. The collapse started from the cooler bottom of the building.
The smoke emanating from the building indicates incomplete combustion. Compare that with the Madrid tower, which blazed bright flames, yet did not collapse.
No. WTC7 was a clear, symmetrical demolition. To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of scientific reason. It may fool some of our fluoride, aspartame and public educationally-enriched sleeple, but that is all your version of the collapse can do. Fool people.
BTW Did you know that the writer of the Popular Mechanics hit-piece is related to Chertoff the Homeland Security supremo?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | so the reports of firemen being told to clear the building at 11.30am are?
im pretty sure its one of the reports defending the offical story that says it also.
see this is where things dont make sense with the offical version.
did they predict everything 6 hours in advance before they left the building? or is the claim firemen were ordered to leave the building at 11.30am a lie? if so why lie? |
You didn't read the quotes.
You didn't follow the links.
You didn't check the timings, or understand the reports.
You wish to believe in CT.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of scientific reason. It may fool some of our fluoride, aspartame and public educationally-enriched sleeple, but that is all your version of the collapse can do. Fool people. |
rodin, please be so good as to provide the name of the engineering/science Institute/Institution to which you belong. Other members would love to engage you, question your theories-require evidence and maybe even consider you for Fellowship.
I expect a long wait.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | Quote: | | To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of scientific reason. It may fool some of our fluoride, aspartame and public educationally-enriched sleeple, but that is all your version of the collapse can do. Fool people. |
rodin, please be so good as to provide the name of the engineering/science Institute/Institution to which you belong. Other members would love to engage you, question your theories-require evidence and maybe even consider you for Fellowship.
I expect a long wait. |
I have a PhD in chemistry. Thesis was on the molecular structure of fluorine compounds. That good enough for you?
Do you deny any of my observations? They were clearly stated.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: |
Heat rises. Flames rise. Therefor the hottest part of the building would have been near the top.
|
(my bolding)
Rubbish.
The hottest part of a bunsen burner flame is (as I recall) at the tip of the "blue" cone in the flame, not 6' above. The hottest part of my wood stove is in the box, not somewhere in the chimney stack.
etc
| rodin wrote: |
The smoke emanating from the building indicates incomplete combustion. Compare that with the Madrid tower, which blazed bright flames, yet did not collapse.
|
No, it indicates that incomplete combustion is going on somewhere, not that the entire fire is inefficient.
The Windsor building had a RC core. It was (some) steel external columns that failed.
| rodin wrote: |
No. WTC7 was a clear, symmetrical demolition. To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of scientific reason. It may fool some of our fluoride, aspartame and public educationally-enriched sleeple, but that is all your version of the collapse can do. Fool people.
|
That's your assertion, certainly
| rodin wrote: |
BTW Did you know that the writer of the Popular Mechanics hit-piece is related to Chertoff the Homeland Security supremo? |
really? Do you have a source for that information? Benjamin Chertoff denies any family connection.
You don't seem to have got much right in this post, rodin.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you rodin. Wasn't what I asked but with a PhD in chemistry I expect you are a member, fellow even, of a professional institution and are registered with the Science Council.
Do you engage other members in 9/11 debate?
| Quote: | | Heat rises. Flames rise. Therefor the hottest part of the building would have been near the top. |
I suspect you are only considering convection and your statement above can be shot full of holes based on convection alone. There are two other methods of heat transfer at work.
Arguing science and engineering with conspiracy theorists isn't my idea of fun. I've posted on one of the 'Israeli' claims, perhaps it's the one to which you referred earlier.
Judy Wood has a PhD.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some points
I am not a member of any professional scientific body. I chose a career in the recording industry. I am a member of the APRS.
I obtained the information about Benjamin Chertoff being Michael Chertoff's cousin from several web sources. If all of them are wrong, and perhaps picked up from one false lead, as is all too easy on the fast-moving internet, then you may be correct in that this is a false story. I am surprised I have not heard it being refuted before, though.
Now, about the heat transfer inside the building. Heat is convected upwards. Much of the heat from my wood-burning stove disappears up the chimney, to my chagrin! However, the Chimney/Grate model is not what we have inside a building. We have floors of similar combustibility. Therefore the heat and flames will intensify as the blaze gets going the further up the building. Do I have to make a wooden model of WTC, set it on fire in the middle, and prove to you that the top will be ash while the bottom is still standing?
The WTC7 collapse initiated from the bottom.
Interestingly, although the stove became dangerously hot when I overloaded it with pine once, so much so that logs stacked 2 feet away from it started to singe - it has never shown any deformation. The only part which has, over the years, begun to sag is the cast iron grate which is in direct contact with persistent red heat.
The comment about Judy Wood was, shall we say, informative.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do I have to make a wooden model of WTC, set it on fire in the middle, and prove to you that the top will be ash while the bottom is still standing? |
I find it hard to believe that a genuine PhD would believe an experiment this ridiculous would prove anything.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | Do I have to make a wooden model of WTC, set it on fire in the middle, and prove to you that the top will be ash while the bottom is still standing? |
I find it hard to believe that a genuine PhD would believe an experiment this ridiculous would prove anything. |
It would prove that a structure in which the combustible elements were evenly dispersed would be hotter near the top as cooler air is drawn into the base. The posts by Major and Ignatz were trying to compare WTC7 with a hearth fire. I was merely pointing out that they were being disingenous. And so are you.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rodin said | Quote: | | The posts by Major and Ignatz were trying to compare WTC7 with a hearth fire. |
Where have I done such a thing? I'm suggesting your understanding of heat transfer is llimited. The hearth fire stuff is coming from you. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory.
| Quote: | | I was merely pointing out that they were being disingenous. |
Who is disingenuous?
Pepik said
| Quote: | | I find it hard to believe that a genuine PhD would believe an experiment this ridiculous would prove anything |
There's the rub pepik. Judy Wood might.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | rodin said | Quote: | | The posts by Major and Ignatz were trying to compare WTC7 with a hearth fire. |
Where have I done such a thing? I'm suggesting your understanding of heat transfer is llimited. The hearth fire stuff is coming from you. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory.
| Quote: | | I was merely pointing out that they were being disingenous. |
Who is disingenuous?
Pepik said
| Quote: | | I find it hard to believe that a genuine PhD would believe an experiment this ridiculous would prove anything |
There's the rub pepik. Judy Wood might. |
So.. pepik, Ignatz and Major. You guys know each other?
1) Ignatz brought up the fire-and-chimney analogy, not me. Still never let the truth get in the way of a good debunking...
You said there were two other forms of heat transfer and that I did not understand them. I will deal with these.
Conduction can only cool the temperature of steel that has been heated by distributing kinetic energy more widely.
Radiant heat is going to be stronger where the fire is greatest. By convection this will tend upwards through a structure such as a building.
I do not know where Judy Wood got her PhD from and I do not care. I got mine from the University of Edinburgh. Quite frankly it was much too easy. I wrote nearly 10 published papers and simultaneously ran a recording studio. Money for old rope, I thought.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | so the reports of firemen being told to clear the building at 11.30am are?
im pretty sure its one of the reports defending the offical story that says it also.
see this is where things dont make sense with the offical version.
did they predict everything 6 hours in advance before they left the building? or is the claim firemen were ordered to leave the building at 11.30am a lie? if so why lie? |
You didn't read the quotes.
You didn't follow the links.
You didn't check the timings, or understand the reports.
You wish to believe in CT. |
what an idiot. yes i did check the links however we are are also told by the offical version all firemen were ordered out at 11.30am so any confusion here is coursed by the offical version.
who is lieing and why?
talk about avoid my point and twist it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: |
1) Ignatz brought up the fire-and-chimney analogy, not me. Still never let the truth get in the way of a good debunking...
|
It wasn't an analogy, it was an example. Are you totally sure you have a PhD?
I was pointing out that your assertion about temperatures being higher well above the fire is just plain wrong.
It remains wrong, and always will be.
Temperature is always highest in the fire, which makes perfect sense as it's the fire that is the source of the energy. Heat can only be lost as the plume rises.
For example please read the following --
"The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:
Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height"
from : http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
I suppose that, with you having made so many mistakes in one post, one should allow you some 'getout' to preserve your dignity ???
Hmm ... nah.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: |
So.. pepik, Ignatz and Major. You guys know each other?
|
I have no idea who they are.
But we did once have a rescue greyhound called "Pepi", named after his previous owner, a certain Maurice Peppard. Lovely dog, very nervous at first but he came out of his shell over the years.
If you're concerned about "socks" all you have to do is ask the admins to check it out. You'll find I have nothing to do with these other fine fellows. It's just your paranoia at work.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
