Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Russell Pickering said:
And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?
Click to expand...

There are more photos of this than there are photos of teams of demolitions experts planting explosives.

More photos of this than there are photos of explosives going off.

More witnesses reporting massive fires than reporting a series of demolition explosions.

More experts agreeing with impact and fire damage after looking into the evidence than suggesting demolition or some other factor.

Where's your photo, Russell? Or is there a seperate standard of evidence for tyhe version of truth you want to believe compared to anything else?
 
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have bolded the important part, please think about it.

( As silly as your request for non existent photographs to disprove your theories, in case you missed the point Russell)
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?
Click to expand...
There are many photos, and some videos, of the building when it's on fire. You've seen them, so don't act like an idiot.

Suppose there were none. Does that mean that the fire, as described by the FDNY, did not exist?

Should the FDNY, rather than attempting to rescue their fallen brothers, have been standing on the burning rubble and taking snapshots, Russell? Would that have been your priority as a firefighter?
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

The media were moved away from the building like everyone else, to a safe distance.

That did not encompass a 360-degree area around the tower, because if one were facing the damage and moved back to a safe distance, one would be up to one's neck in the burning debris of WTC 1 and 2. One would therefore have to be to the left or right, or on the other side of the tower.

Maybe that's why there aren't any good shots.
 
uk_dave said:
As for Gravy's comment ragarding the WTC7 structure, I totally agree that the cantilevered design at the base of the building was going to be the most vulnerable. Cantilevers have much less scope for redundancy and (since they pivot around the point of support) provide a whole different set of stresses on the remaining structure than a conventional beam supported at either end.
Click to expand...

Yup, and it's not just the cantilevers; any beam or slab design that depends on tension on the top side over columns and beams to partially counteract gravity loads in the spans is MUCH more prone to complete progressive failure when any part fails. Structural engineers have known that for a long time, but designing that way is simply cheaper, and that's what owners usually want.

My own hypothesis is that it's quite possible that the truss towers had either design or construction flaws, or both, which put them very near their limits before the fires started.
 
I think it's interesting to note (Though I think everybody here can see it, including Russlle) how Russlle has backed himself in to a corner and is demanding evidence that he hopes does not exist so that he can save face and hold onto his belief. Evidence was presented of steel structures than have collapsed due to fire. Eyewitness testimonials with source links have been provided. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor has been presented. And Russels response is to dismiss all the testimony and demand pictures of fire on every floor the building before he will conceed. This is a dishonest tactic to preserve his belief. A case of "moving the goal posts". If by some off chance pictures do surface of fire on every single floor of WTC7 (which BTW the picture of smoke pouring from every floor suggests this, but Russell dismisses it anyway) Russell will no doubt move the goal post even further and demand something else.

Just my observation.
 
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed they were Russell and they all had video and audio recording devises, presumably high quality.

Care to produce an audio recording of the very distinctive noise of charges going off as WTC 7 was demolished?

Just another silly request.
 
Gravy said:
There are many photos, and some videos, of the building when it's on fire. You've seen them, so don't act like an idiot.

Suppose there were none. Does that mean that the fire, as described by the FDNY, did not exist?

Should the FDNY, rather than attempting to rescue their fallen brothers, have been standing on the burning rubble and taking snapshots, Russell? Would that have been your priority as a firefighter?
Click to expand...

There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.

How many photos have we seen that day taken with telephoto lenses? There would be one of a fire of a 47 story building fully involved in flame. The CBS collapse video was trained on the building all afternoon. NO FIRE.

It is time for you to be honest. What you have is a smoky fuel fire, perhaps around floors 5-7 like FEMA suggested. That smoke drafted up the side of the building in the currents created by being on the leeward side of the building.

In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0
Click to expand...

wtc71.jpg


NO FLAME.

wtc72.jpg


Look through the smoke and try and tell me you have even one side of the building fully involved in fire. You can see the windows.

wtc73.jpg


3 sides of the building now with NO FLAME.

So lets say there was fire on one side of the building - what caused it to symmetrically collapse? The windows aren't even universally broken out to ventilate a fire.
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
I think it's interesting to note (Though I think everybody here can see it, including Russlle) how Russlle has backed himself in to a corner and is demanding evidence that he hopes does not exist so that he can save face and hold onto his belief. Evidence was presented of steel structures than have collapsed due to fire. Eyewitness testimonials with source links have been provided. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor has been presented. And Russels response is to dismiss all the testimony and demand pictures of fire on every floor the building before he will conceed. This is a dishonest tactic to preserve his belief. A case of "moving the goal posts". If by some off chance pictures do surface of fire on every single floor of WTC7 (which BTW the picture of smoke pouring from every floor suggests this, but Russell dismisses it anyway) Russell will no doubt move the goal post even further and demand something else.

Just my observation.
Click to expand...

PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have ever visited.

You guys need a new playbook.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
I have bolded the important part, please think about it.

( As silly as your request for non existent photographs to disprove your theories, in case you missed the point Russell)
Click to expand...

It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles. And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.
 
Russell Pickering said:
PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have evr visited.

You guys need a new playbook.
Click to expand...
Well instead of wasting time posting on the internet go and talk with the people who will more than likely be able to answer your questions, that's of course unless you are afraid of finding out the truth
 
stateofgrace said:
Indeed they were Russell and they all had video and audio recording devises, presumably high quality.

Care to produce an audio recording of the very distinctive noise of charges going off as WTC 7 was demolished?

Just another silly request.
Click to expand...

Actually I have wondered why so many videos posted of the collapse do not have sound associated with them.
 
Russell Pickering said:
It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles. And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, first off - the freakin Twin Towers had just collpased - do you honestly think that anyone, gave a [rule8]about WTC7 enough to go out of their way to photograph it from the WTC Towers rubble? I am sitting here, baffled, that an ex-firefighter can look at smoke pouring out of a 50 story building and think it wasnt consumed by fire. I think you are in a little bit of denial, my friend.

Any why are you not answring inquiries about the FDNY's quotes on WTC7? Are you going to look into WTC7 yourself as you did with the Pentagon?
 
Russell Pickering said:
Actually I have wondered why so many videos posted of the collapse do not have sound associated with them.
Click to expand...

Just after this.

It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles.And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.
Click to expand...

It was live Russell, how did they manage to remove the audio from the collpase of WTC 7?
 
W6102LA said:
Well instead of wasting time posting on the internet go and talk with the people who will more than likely be able to answer your questions, that's of course unless you are afraid of finding out the truth
Click to expand...

Is this a recording track or a live person?

".....which through the force of repetition often turn the truth into lies, and lies into truth."
 
apathoid said:
Uhhh, first off - the freakin Twin Towers had just collpased - do you honestly think that anyone, gave a [rule8]about WTC7 enough to go out of their way to photograph it from the WTC Towers rubble? I am sitting here, baffled, that an ex-firefighter can look at smoke pouring out of a 50 story building and think it wasnt consumed by fire. I think you are in a little bit of denial, my friend.

Any why are you not answring inquiries about the FDNY's quotes on WTC7? Are you going to look into WTC7 yourself as you did with the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

Just collapsed?

7 hours.
 
Russell Pickering said:
...This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have evr visited...
Click to expand...

And you, sir, are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered.

You've been provided with a preponderance of evidence that WTC7 was on fire. Photos and videos. Expert testimony by on-site eyewitnesses. Everything a reasonable, rational person would need to accept the fact.

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it. You want to believe in some other shadowy, ill-defined reality, because apparently it fulfills some need in your life. So you ignore all the facts in front of you. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you must need to perform to be made aware of these facts, but still somehow cling to your beliefs.

It wouldn't really matter if someone did produce an up-close photo of WTC7 totally engulfed in great leaping flames, would it? Because you'd just dismiss it as a fake. The flames don't look right. They're the wrong color, size, shape, whatever. They were obviously PhotoShopped -- something, anything to keep your cherished little delusion alive.

In short, you have closed your mind and refuse to consider anything that might imperil your ability to continue to believe what you want to believe. In this way you're no different from any extremist who ever blindly followed any lost cause throughout history. So please don't talk of dishonesty; you're frankly in no position to do so.
 
Last edited:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0
Click to expand...


wtc71.jpg


NO FLAME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom