Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

I've always found the pictures and video of the WTC7 smoke weird. Tons of smoke, no flames. Does anybody have an account of the time any of these pictures or the one video were taken? The video is short and cuts off abruptly. I wonder if it was taken right before WTC7 "collapsed".
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I've always found the pictures and video of the WTC7 smoke weird. Tons of smoke, no flames. Does anybody have an account of the time any of these pictures or the one video were taken? The video is short and cuts off abruptly. I wonder if it was taken right before WTC7 "collapsed".
Click to expand...

I'd think they are weird too if eye-witness testimonies didn't clarify the fact that there was an "inferno" in the bulding.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I've always found the pictures and video of the WTC7 smoke weird. Tons of smoke, no flames. Does anybody have an account of the time any of these pictures or the one video were taken? The video is short and cuts off abruptly. I wonder if it was taken right before WTC7 "collapsed".
Click to expand...
In my WTC 7 paper I quote and link to over 200 first-responder accounts about the condition of WTC 7. Based on those accounts, do you find it strange that building 7 collapsed? To those involved in assessing the condition of the building, the collapse was fully expected. Agreed?
 
The second-shortest chapter in the CT Bible: "Russell fled."
 
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...


Russell Pickering was never a firefighter.
 
I demand an independant investigation to the events of 11/1. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. That means the official story cannot be true.

(bump for a lurker "friend" of mine)
 
Gravy said:
The second-shortest chapter in the CT Bible: "Russell fled."
Click to expand...

I was still waiting for pictures to respond to. Nearly two days and lots of words and insults later we don't have any photos of substantial fires at WTC 7.

wtcdraft.jpg


I am surprised since you guys like science so much you won't acknowledge what is going on in this photo. It is a perfect example of the following principle. Read it carefully. I'll narrate.

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...

".....smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed....."

I believe this part is self explanatory.

"A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building."

EXACTLY what we see here. Look at the bottom left corner of the building. No fire. The fire is to the right or near the center of the building. It is near the lower levels and it is on the leeward side of the building.

"Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building."

Perfect again. Notice the darkness of the smoke at the bottom and how it lightens and thins near the top. This would not happen if all of the floors were involved. Except for the two side windows on the left there is no evidence of smoke coming from anywhere else inside the building other than down low. You can even see that smoke getting sucked into the draft. Look how many floors of the building you can see. Not one lick of flame visible. If it was fully involved what caused those other floors to burn out?

"Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof."

This is 100% obvious. You can literally see the wall of the vortices on the side. Then the accumulation at the top that gets "shed" occasionally. You can even see the papers and debris rising and circulating in the thermal draft.

The wind tunnel results probably looked nearly 100% identical to this.

This is not a 40 floor, fully involved, conflagration. It is probably the fuel fires FEMA mentions in the 5-7 floor range. They are VERY obviously being carried up the leeward face of the building exactly as the scientific study above describes in detail. There is not even flame visible at the source of the fires.

Why do you guys insist on even turning on science? Why don't you contact the man who did the report, email him the photo and then post his reply here?

You've really stepped it up this time by denying what you can see with your own eyes described perfectly in a repeatable experiment.

Those tinyurl links aren't working. Is there a way to see them?
 
There isn't smoke without fire?

ETA:
A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building
Click to expand...

bolding mine
 
Last edited:
jujigatami said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any comments Russell?

This man was there, is there anything you like to comment on ?
 
Russell Pickering said:
"Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof."

This is 100% obvious. You can literally see the wall of the vortices on the side. Then the accumulation at the top that gets "shed" occasionally. You can even see the papers and debris rising and circulating in the thermal draft.

The wind tunnel results probably looked nearly 100% identical to this.
Click to expand...
Russell Pickering, before I nail your hide to the wall again, would you confirm this for me, please:

Did you actually read the report you cite, above, or are you basing your impressions on the abstract? The use of the word "probably" makes me doubt you've read it, and I wanted to confirm.

Also, I've been around wind tunnels, and I suspect you have not. Brace yourself.
 
I know this is back-tracking a bit, but I am trying to figure out what RP's problem is with the photo Gravy posted and the position of the towers. The extra photo's that he tacked on only seemed to confirm that Gravy's placement was correct. I don't wish to distract Russell from answering any of the other questions being asked, but if you could post a picture that points to exactly where you think the towers should be, I would be most greatful.

ETA: I mean post Gravy's picture with an arrow or something.
 
Lookit! No fire here...

Hamiltons2.jpg


Or here...

cook-county-fire.jpg


Nope, not here either...

01.jpg


More buildings not on fire...

Bank01.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom