Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Russell Pickering said:
Quote:
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.^
Click to expand...
But you can see in that photo you posted that the smoke is coming out of the windows of WTC7, not "building up" from a lower source. You can see this even better in the videos that those stills are from. Another weakness in your argument is that your quote talks about how the smoke is periodically swept away, but we don't see that with WTC7.

You do have a good point about the flames not being visible from photos of its North side. Maybe the windows were coated with soot, maybe the air in the building was too opaque to let the light through, maybe the fires were actually contained to the lower floors and the smoke filled the building, coming out all the South windows broken by the North Tower collapse. Even that last explanation, which I think you may agree with, is perfectly consistent with the standard model of WTC7's collapse.
 
apathoid said:
Smoke generators??
Click to expand...
I think the reason he didn't answer my question (I asked the same question in 3 different posts on this thread) is because he has me on his ignore list, as soon as you quoted me he replied.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.


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.
Click to expand...

Its important to note that you had a vertical progressive collapse under the east penthouse. The collapse of the east caused 40 STORY DEBRIS to massively damage the interior of the building causing a horizonal SECONDARY collapse inside the building.
I believe the hole on the other end of the south face certainly didn't help, as we also know from pictures that exterior columns were holed and in fact sticking outward.
Much attention is on the Spak (corner hole as some state) photo however I believe this should also be noted.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html Again note column sticking outward.

Figure L-31 in the NIST report is also VERY important

The 5 to 6 sec. delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west penthouse approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical failure progression on the east side of the building to reach floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses and girders in the area.
PLEASE see L-31-33

I would also suggest L-50-51

And the Working hypothesis:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire
structure.

Also from photos it seems clear there were fires on various floors, not just in the 5-7 floor area. NIST also has more info on this. L 2.2

Also see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2065078&postcount=137
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.
Click to expand...
False. Are you actually afraid to watch the videos? Here they are again. They're short. Climb out of your crib and deal with reality. You can handle this.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un

http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd

8790454b904a16ca2.jpg


879045095ccfd1d8d.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
I dunno. Training, experiance, knowledge, observation, Uri Geller, a fourtune cookie.
Click to expand...
...and the fact that two of the largest office buildings in the world had collapsed due to damage and fire that morning, across the street.
 
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.
Click to expand...
How is this relevant to Gravy posting statements by members of the FDNY who described the building as "completely involved in fire"?

Are you saying all those firemen are delusional, or lying? Or did Gravy make them up? Pay some actors to stand around WTC7 and lie about the condition of the building afterwards?
Of course, if there never were any firefighters that suggests that a fire could burn long enough to bring down a 47-storey building.
 
I think the problem is that if the skeptic accepts the proposition that there is a conspiracy, then we have a crime on our hands.

Whereas if the CT accepts the boring truth of the official version, they have time on their hands.
 
Oh, crap. Now Russell and TS1234 are working feverishly on the "no firefighters" hypothesis.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
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

wtc71.jpg


NO FLAME.
Click to expand...

NO RUSSELL.

There were flames pouring out of WTC7 from many many floors. Sorry I didn't have a camera and didn't snap you a picture. But I saw it. You've read my account. Flames were shooting out of 75% of the floors on the south side of WTC7. And that was at about 2:30pm, I can only imagine how bad it got by 5 or 6. I saw it with my own eyes. It was a MASSIVE fire. and there was tons ond tons of debris piled up against the building.

I've said it before that it was OBVIOUS to anyone that was there that WTC7 was going to collapse.

It was an INFERNO!

But don't worry, the next major disaster I'm in, I'll make sure to take pictures so you can visualize it.
 
It almost looks like a smokebomb, not much fire but a lot of smoke. Was there a lot of wind at that moment ? The intensity of fire should be visible through the smoke or not ? If Russel was a firefighter he could tell that.
The picture scale and daylight will not change the image we have of wtc7. Google for some daylight fires and you know what I mean. For scientifical purposes and the fact that already two buildings collapsed due to fire it would be of interest to have at least some detailed images of it. It would be nice to have those testimonies backed up by some hard facts. If a plane crashes and there are no pictures I would believe it, but if someone says he or she saw a gnome I wouldn't believe it. The fact that they expected it to collapse due to fire is a very important and amazing point, if even FEMA calls the hypotheses improbable it's not strange that people are very skeptical when they are confronted with the facts of this one-off event, it was not something minor that happened there. Normally it takes preparation by skilled experts and now fire did the work, they will scratch their head I assume.

Here again the Madrid tower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjaLQDJdMc
 
einsteen

Did you actually read the post above yours?

What part of "It was an INFERNO" was not made clear to you ?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by W6102LA
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...

Russell Pickering said:
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."
Click to expand...

Can someone loan me one of those " banging head on desktop" emoticons ?
 
einsteen said:
It almost looks like a smokebomb, not much fire but a lot of smoke. Was there a lot of wind at that moment ? The intensity of fire should be visible through the smoke or not ? If Russel was a firefighter he could tell that.
The picture scale and daylight will not change the image we have of wtc7. Google for some daylight fires and you know what I mean. For scientifical purposes and the fact that already two buildings collapsed due to fire it would be of interest to have at least some detailed images of it. It would be nice to have those testimonies backed up by some hard facts. If a plane crashes and there are no pictures I would believe it, but if someone says he or she saw a gnome I wouldn't believe it. The fact that they expected it to collapse due to fire is a very important and amazing point, if even FEMA calls the hypotheses improbable it's not strange that people are very skeptical when they are confronted with the facts of this one-off event, it was not something minor that happened there. Normally it takes preparation by skilled experts and now fire did the work, they will scratch their head I assume.

Here again the Madrid tower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjaLQDJdMc
Click to expand...

FEMA doesn't call the hypotheses improbable. In fact they state it was "likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors" I also suggest reading the NIST intern report. Steven Jones is not telling you the truth.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
It almost looks like a smokebomb, not much fire but a lot of smoke. Was there a lot of wind at that moment ? The intensity of fire should be visible through the smoke or not ? If Russel was a firefighter he could tell that.
The picture scale and daylight will not change the image we have of wtc7. Google for some daylight fires and you know what I mean. For scientifical purposes and the fact that already two buildings collapsed due to fire it would be of interest to have at least some detailed images of it. It would be nice to have those testimonies backed up by some hard facts. If a plane crashes and there are no pictures I would believe it, but if someone says he or she saw a gnome I wouldn't believe it. The fact that they expected it to collapse due to fire is a very important and amazing point, if even FEMA calls the hypotheses improbable it's not strange that people are very skeptical when they are confronted with the facts of this one-off event, it was not something minor that happened there. Normally it takes preparation by skilled experts and now fire did the work, they will scratch their head I assume.
Click to expand...

Is THIS what we have to look forward to? Is THIS the future? If it isn't on video, it doesn't exist?

What about the eye witnesses and experts on the scene?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom