Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

WildCat said:
You're a photographer Russell, what do you know about how a fire will show up in a pic taken at night vs. one taken on a bright sunny day?

And once again, you bring up the Madrid tower - the steel portions of which collapsed completely!
Click to expand...

Yes - it's a lens trick.
 
Russell Pickering said:
On the bottom link - not so much as an orange glow on any floor.
Click to expand...
If your refering to the video, the area of initation was on the far corner of the south side away from the video.

(Edit I should say closer to the far side, not "corner")
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
There must be a slight misunderstanding here. It is not up to us to disprove your theory. It is your duty to prove it.

And in this context, the warehouse is relevant, depite the multiple differences, because one argument used in order to support the conspiract theory is the claim that "a steel supported building has never collapsed from fire alone". So quite apart from the fact nobody claims any of the WTC failed from fire alone, this is an example of a building where a steel structure, even if it hardly had to support anything but its own weight, actually buckled and (partly) collapsed due to fire alone.

So, argument refuted. Please state your next piece of evidence for your theory.

Hans
Click to expand...

I love JREF!!!!!!
 
Can you please explain why there is smoke coming from almost every floor on the South side of WTC 7 if it wasn't on fire?
 
Russell Pickering said:
"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.
Click to expand...

And obviously no one in their right mind could describe WTC 7 in that way, right, ex-firefighter Pickering?

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

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)

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.

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 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110413.PDF

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.

"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.–Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110103.PDF

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. –Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110022.PDF

Right, ex-firefighter Pickering, who claims to respect the FDNY?

Right?
​
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
Is there a good working link to it?
Click to expand...
Offhand I don't think I have a good image of that area. I should also note (as I stated before) the 5th floor doesn't have windows. NIST also mentions this point within the Debunking 911 book. (pg 56)

Best Scott
 
Larry Lovage said:
[Russell doesn't think the smoke is coming from WTC7]
Russell Pickering said:
100% inaccurate. I know that is the edge of WTC 7. It was the location of the towers that was misrepresented. Try again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So since my second post was in error, I will return to my first post:
Larry Lovage said:
Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".
Click to expand...
 
Russell Pickering said:
Ultimatum distraction is one of my favorites!
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you just can not help yourself can you Russell? It has been pointed out to you already the pitfalls of hanging your hat on the lack of evidence, but have you taken any notice? Emm, apparently not.

See Russell wants to see a photograph or video of the raging fires inside WTC 7 because unless he does, it didn't happen. It is beyond the mindset to try and build a credible case on the evidence that is already available; therefore the only thing to do is try to put a spin on it by pointing out what is not there. Russell has summed up the mind set of the truth movement perfectly in this thread.

“I am visual guy, show me a photograph". But there are no photographs showing what he asks for, no visual record of the raging fire inside WTC 7. Well none that will satisfy him.

Conclusion..... There were no raging fires.

It's so simple and can be easily carried over onto other great conspiracy theories. “What no CCTV showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon"

Conclusion ....something else must have happened. And on and on...

Despite that sworn testimony from the firemen that were actually there. Despite the photographs that have been shown, despite the fact that right now NIST are applying their expertise to this matter. This can all be dismissed, because Russell and his merry men have not seen a photograph, oh almost forget it looked like a controlled Demolition.

It appears to me that the cters honestly believe that NIST are working on the final report into WTC 7 simply to debunk their nutty theories. I'm sure they are aware of these theories and occasionally have a giggle at them, but despite the truth movements feeling of self importance, this is far from the real reason to produce such a report. See here is something that has not happened before, it was unexpected, so it needs thoroughly investigating and recommendations need to be put in place to prevent it happening again. This takes time, it is done on the merry men’s behave; it is done to save life’s in the future. Of course they won't see it this way, it's all one big cover up and right now secret agents from NIST are infiltrating the LC board and no doubt monitoring this board and desperately amending their final report to take into account the truth seekers nutty theories.

It is so easy to turn their no evidence theories round if somebody was to apply the same thinking as them. So Russell.

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 1 and 2

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 7

What? You can’t, well then it never happened, so please stop saying it did.
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Russell,

Please stop with the 'God of the Gaps' argument and address the evidence that is available for scrutiny.

Pic under section 2.3 and second pair of pics under section 2.5
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Pgs L-19 through L-26
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html
Click to expand...
And let's not leave out: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
 
Russ, can you just humor us and give us your take on the FDNY quotes? Are they quoted out of context, cherry picked, made up out of thin air, do they not represent the views of the FDNY on the whole?

You've demanded a photo of the building being engulfed in flames and it's been explained by several posters that there are no such photos - so there is little point in asking again. However, the photos that were shown do exhibit smoke coming out of every floor. So I am forced to ask you, an ex-firefighter, how could that be in a building with only a few small isolated fires on only a few floors?

I think you need to approach WTC7 in the same manner that you researched the Pentagon. That is, get on the horn and start talking to people who were there. You can find dozens of people listed in Gravys WTC7 paper, that would be a start. You didnt investigoogle your way to becoming the Pentagon guru.
 
Gravy said:
And obviously no one in their right mind could describe WTC 7 in that way, right, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Right, ex-firefighter Pickering, who claims to respect the FDNY?

Right?​
Click to expand...

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?
Click to expand...

And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?
 
Russell Pickering said:
"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that you can represent a fire, as dynamic a process as there ever was, by a single snapshot? And that snapshot is an accurate representation of the fire from beginning to end?

What is to stop you from showing the most dramatic photo from the fire you wish to accentuate, and the most mild photo from the one you want to minimize?
 
stateofgrace said:
It is so easy to turn their no evidence theories round if somebody was to apply the same thinking as them. So Russell.

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 1 and 2

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 7

What? You can’t, well then it never happened, so please stop saying it did.
Click to expand...

I deleted the rest of the speculation. The above requests are just silly.

Do you have photos of the aircraft damage inside the towers before they collapsed?

Do you see?

A 40 story building fully involved in fire at the end of the day in a media dominated area should have at least one photo or video.
 
Just one question,

Who took pictures of the main elevator shaft where the Diesel fuel line was that feed the flames?
The shaft would have also been the best source of air, and also would have had the hottest part of the fires.
Like in the towers there was a structure that could have hidden a local highly intense jet burner effect one that could have produces significantly more heat than in the toilet paper factory. Plus there was a fuel source directly inside the Building similar to the towers one.
Can anyone tell me the melting point of steel, of the combustion point of steel? Intense fires in a Jet burner Chimney effect can be hidden from view by the Chimney itself.
Just because something is unseen by a camera does not mean that it was not witnessed, and did not happen.
The toilet paper factory is important because of one factor it was steel and the Cters stated one modern metal steel frame building that collapsed because of fire, and now we have two, the Madrid towers who's steel collapsed, and the toilet paper factory.
Plus add to that that conditions in the buildings at the world trade center were optimal for high temperature fires that can even burn steel, by exposing the heated steel to a jet of heated air, and you have the making of an extremely hot fire indeed, and since steel burn without smoke burring steel would for the most part go UN noticed.
PS. a chimney effect produces ultrasound and infra sound both of which make metals more likely to burn, by disrupting the oxide coatings that protect them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom