• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Previous discussions on the vid in question. Please make comments in those thread and don't derail this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67149
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77392&page=7
Click to expand...

Exactly right.


Please keep this thread on the relevant topic of the photographs, and move the explosion video discussion to one of the existing threads. If you are unable to do so, this thread can be placed on moderated status, to ensure no further derailing.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
WildCat said:
Then would you care to comment on Nigro's statement? Is it factual RedIbis?
Click to expand...

Add the other firefighters from the Gravy page I posted to that question as well.

How would you be able to explain how WTC7 wasn't severely damaged or burning very much without calling nearly the entire FDNY liars?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Add the other firefighters from the Gravy page I posted to that question as well.

How would you be able to explain how WTC7 wasn't severely damaged or burning very much without calling nearly the entire FDNY liars?
Click to expand...

In other threads I commented on the collection of quotes presented on Gravy's pages. When I started asking specific questions, Gravy put me on ignore and ended the discussion.

Many of the firefighters report getting the word, or that the word had come down that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Read these quotes carefully. Very few of them report massive fires. Some do, but most of the firefighter quotes report that someone (turns out it comes from the OEM) had passed the word that the bldg would soon collapse.

My other observation is that quoting firefighters, first responders and others on the scene presents a very wide range of experiences. If we are going to take reports of massive fires into account, we must also take reports of explosions and other events which don't square with the official story.

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.
 
cmcaulif said:
red, when 7 was hit with debris, I think we can agree that at the very least a great deal of windows were broken on the South Side, which would allow for a plenty of air to flow into the building and feed a fire.

In the video from a few posts up, these windows were not on the face impacted with debris, and were blown out by heat alone, which certainly indicates a hot fire. Also, it appears this video was taken at the time when firefighting operations were still going on, so the building would have been allowed to burn for several hours after this was taken.
Click to expand...

1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.
2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.
Click to expand...
Let's see:
1. The firefighters observed that WTC was "fully involved" and had massive damage from the tower falling on it.
2. They decide that since they have no water to fight the fire, they will create a collapse zone around it and keep everyone away.
3. Three hours later, WTC 7 indeed collapses. Without any sounds of explosion, and in stages. Just as they feared it would.

You were saying? :rolleyes:
 
RedIbis said:
1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.
2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.
Click to expand...

hit refreah or the enter key after following this link
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg
or from this page
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
a composite
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.
Click to expand...
Even if there is no such picture, that is not evidence that there was not an inferno.
 
WildCat said:
3. Three hours later, WTC 7 indeed collapses. Without any sounds of explosion, and in stages. Just as they feared it would.
:
Click to expand...

What exactly is the logic behind the canard "without any sounds"?
 
RedIbis said:
Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.
Click to expand...


the south side had a multi floor atrium at its concourse level. Why would there even be flames At the windows?

And if you cannot see the building because of the smoke. Even on a bright sunny day. How could you
see flames behind the smoke?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.
Click to expand...

Do the NUMEROUS firefighter eyewitness accounts mean anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom