10 story hole in WTC 7

[Miragememories]

Now your just ranting....I've denied the validity of your photo comparison just fine. The other photo only further supports the damage claim. Now your calling foul on that one also because it further hurts your wild claims.
Stomp away...

Ranting. Well I guess pounding ones fist against a dogmatic brick wall is ranting.

You will deny the existence of anything in order to preserve your belief that you are right and I am wrong Kent1.

The other photo is plain and simply a a bad photo.

It's a good photo for your purposes because it does indeed muddy the waters while not revealing enough information to be contradicted.

My reference photo is good. The NIST exhibit photo is pure propaganda offered to the public as proof that WTC7 suffered extreme corner damage from WTC1 falling debris.

Obviously NIST never expected to get "called out" on this photo exhibit or they would never have been so foolish as to use it.

MM

 

[Kent1]

Ranting. Well I guess pounding ones fist against a dogmatic brick wall is ranting.

You will deny the existence of anything in order to preserve your belief that you are right and I am wrong Kent1.

The other photo is plain and simply a a bad photo.

It's a good photo for your purposes because it does indeed muddy the waters while not revealing enough information to be contradicted.

My reference photo is good. The NIST exhibit photo is pure propaganda offered to the public as proof that WTC7 suffered extreme corner damage from WTC1 falling debris.

Obviously NIST never expected to get "called out" on this photo exhibit or they would never have been so foolish as to use it.

MM

More mantra and unproven claims.
This corner damge is not central to the NIST WTC 7 debate. Mind you we have already clearly proven there was damage to the corner. This can be seen in various videos and photos. Minimal reason to photoshop, maximum penality. Even worse you blame NIST. But hey, you could always make some contacts.
Ask Willie Cirone.

You honestly thought NIST wasn't expecting any other photos or video of the corner?? LOL!! This is getting sillier by the moment. You obviously
haven't spoken to many people.

 

[Belz...]

I think they were looking at WTC 7 from West and Vesey.

You seem to think that the FDNY thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'.

[...]

You can call this 'fully involved' if you want.

So, tell us, O wise one, what does "fully involved" mean ?

 

[Belz...]

Ranting. Well I guess pounding ones fist against a dogmatic brick wall is ranting.

You will deny the existence of anything in order to preserve your belief that you are right and I am wrong Kent1.

The other photo is plain and simply a a bad photo.

It's a good photo for your purposes because it does indeed muddy the waters while not revealing enough information to be contradicted.

My reference photo is good.

Ah! So basically, a good photo is one that agrees with you, and a bad photo is the reverse. Got it.

The NIST exhibit photo is pure propaganda offered to the public as proof that WTC7 suffered extreme corner damage from WTC1 falling debris.

Obviously NIST never expected to get "called out" on this photo exhibit or they would never have been so foolish as to use it.

Speculation.

 

[e^n]

Ah! So basically, a good photo is one that agrees with you, and a bad photo is the reverse. Got it.

Speculation.

You're exactly right in this sense, here is some more work on the photo I posted before. This is pretty crude but I think it shows that the major damage exist until at least the 17th floor.

Suggestions?

 

[Christopher7]

So, tell us, O wise one, what does "fully involved" mean ?

 

[twinstead]

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4082/fullyinvolved1kc6.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2410/fullyinvolved8ya1.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1172/fullyinvolved9yz0.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3628/fullyinvolved10wj6.jpg

So, if it 'looks' fully involved in a picture, it is INDEED fully involved. Otherwise, it is a conspiracy, right?

 

[FactCheck]

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

 

[Mercutio]

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

 

[twinstead]

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

The images of the WTC1 and 2 on fire are especially sobering in that respect. At first glance, they appear to be relatively light. Then, when the realization of scale takes over and one actually realizes just how huge those fires were...

 

[twinstead]

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

You don't know that night amplifies reality and makes it easier to judge what is fully involved and what is not?

Amateur...

 

[chipmunk stew]

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

His second picture would look like so much smoke during the day.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

"Small, isolated pockets" my foot. That's incredible.

Chris, "fully involved" does not mean "completely engulfed in flame."

It's a technical term. It means:

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

WTC7 was fully involved, and they did not have access to fire streams, so it just burned uncontrollably.

edit: Sorry to spoil the answer.

 

[LashL]

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

Exactly what I thought when I saw those self-serving photos)

This looks like a pretty small fire in daylight:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...ssafraz_fire_061213/20061213/?hub=TorontoHome

More than 130 firefighters battled a five-alarm blaze inside a trendy restaurant in Toronto's tony neighbourhood of Yorkville on Wednesday.

The fire was at hotspot Sassafraz, which has been a longtime favourite hangout for celebrities and scenesters alike, especially during the Toronto International Film Festival.

The blaze started at about 11 a.m. and reached the three-alarm level by noon. It quickly reached four alarm and then five.

Streets in the area were closed for hours, causing traffic backlogs.

Damage to the eatery is estimated at $2.5 million.

 

[Christopher7]

Exactly what I thought when I saw those self-serving photos)
This looks like a pretty small fire in daylight:

If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.

 

[Rrramon]

Christopher7, I'm interested to see if you agree with this statement:

Whatever conspirators were involved in 9/11 somehow knew that the debris from the North Tower would cause just enough damage to fool the scientific community into thinking there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse but not quite enough damage to where explosives would no longer be needed to bring it down.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, I'm interested to see if you agree with this statement:

Whatever conspirators were involved in 9/11 somehow knew that the debris from the North Tower would cause just enough damage to fool the scientific community into thinking there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse but not quite enough damage to where explosives would no longer be needed to bring it down.

Nice try at a subject shift.
I have no opinion on that statement.
This thread is about DD/F to WTC 7.

 

[A W Smith]

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

Also means they have to be wooden structures if you look closely at those photos

 

[LashL]

If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

Again, with the self-serving photos that do not even come close to showing the extent of the fires and smoke. Why am I not surprised, Chris?

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.

You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.

[/I]From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.

And no, you're wrong about the comparison factors as well. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. You cannot legitimately separate one element from the entirety of the events just because it suits your purposes. Moreover, you are not qualified to make the determinations that you claim to make.

Edit to add: And I notice you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. Why is that, Chris?

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4082/fullyinvolved1kc6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2410/fullyinvolved8ya1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1172/fullyinvolved9yz0.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3628/fullyinvolved10wj6.jpg[/qimg]

Ah! So "fully involved" means shining at night. Got it.

Have any pictures of day-time "fully involved" building fires ?

No ? Well that explains why 7 WTC wasn't fully involved, doesn't it !!

ETA: Damn you, Mercutio!!