WTC7 video (new?)

[Juniversal]

I listened very closey and the sounds of explosives NOT going off was deafining. Good vid. New to me. And i'm with alienentity. Glad you joined the forums triforcharity. Good to have someone who can really add extra perspective and first hand knowledge.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks, I really appreciate it AE. Sometimes I just feel like nobody wants to hear my ramblings. I think people just think I am an old (not that I am old or anything) rambling idiot who drinks too much wiskey. (Is there even such a thing as TOO MUCH wiskey?)

 

[Thunder]

the reporter keeps on calling it "war". he must work for the NWO as a propaganda agent.

 

[Magenta]

when he was in the lobby of the building he was on barklay st looking south down washington st, the west side of WTC7 on the left the verizon bldg on the right

the second shot he was on the corner of west broadway and barklay
right in front of the ill fated yet seldom mentioned (at least by truthers) 30 west broadway, aka Fiterman Hall

heres a map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

where he was standing on W bway was completely covered in debris from 7
if that gives any scope of "into its own footprint"

Interesting video, and thanks for the map and orientation: it helps a lot for anyone not familiar with the area.

 

[newton3376]

Thanks, I really appreciate it AE. Sometimes I just feel like nobody wants to hear my ramblings. I think people just think I am an old (not that I am old or anything) rambling idiot who drinks too much wiskey. (Is there even such a thing as TOO MUCH wiskey?)

Too much whiskey?

Of course not sir....

 

[triforcharity]

Especially CROWN ROYAL!!! Yes sir, On the rocks......Makes my tongue dance in circles!!

 

[dropzone]

(skulking off as I prefer Old Crow, though a whiskey vs a boubon isn't an accurate comparison)

 

[OneRedEye]

With talk like that you'll be providing people like magi5 with their smoking gun fodder (and it seems that OneRedEye is putting in the advance party).

???

You mean you don't remember every single detail of everything you did that day, timed to the very minute, if not second?????

I could not shake the feeling that I was coming off as a demanding and impetuous bitch, if that's what you're talking about, but it's not every day that you run into someone that saw the bulge. Perhaps I could have been more supplicating, but it wears poorly.

Sorry, triforcharity, if I came across as trying to suck the life out of you. Greetings, triforcharity, pleased to meet you. I have great admiration and not a little envy for those who run towards danger. It's not my desire to dredge up any unpleasant memories, though I note you've spent quite a bit of time in this subforum, and as you said, only certain subjects are off-limits, quite understandably. Detail is desired but hardly essential. If I could distill it into three vague questions:

- Where were you when you saw the bulge?
- How long (seconds, minutes, a passing glance) did you see it?
- Did you notice it on your own, or did someone call your attention to it?

This is peripheral and off topic, so allow me to address the thread. The video is relatively new, yes, but months old. It's a goldmine for anyone interested in certain aspects of reconstruction not previously available.

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely. Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks. I have to imagine streets full of burning cars is an impediment to rescue operations.

 

[chillzero]

???

I could not shake the feeling that I was coming off as a demanding and impetuous bitch, if that's what you're talking about, but it's not every day that you run into someone that saw the bulge. Perhaps I could have been more supplicating, but it wears poorly.

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP. Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people, and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear. The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

 

[newton3376]

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely. Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks. I have to imagine streets full of burning cars is an impediment to rescue operations.

I don't understand your point here...

Are you trying to imply that there was something strange or out of the ordinary because there were some cars that were only partially consumed or had only scorch marks while other cars were completely comsumed?

With the kind of devastation and destruction that occured on 9-11 (which was anything but an "ordinary" day) are you really surprised to find varying degrees of damage to cars?

 

[Justin39640]

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP. Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people, and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear. The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

ok im trying to wrap my head around this and if i misinterpret it, sorry
since you are addressing me

i know the details very well
but there isnt much video between the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7 thats up close like this

i thought it was relevant to several threads and "ideas"
including
"no large fires"
obviously there was
"the smoke was just coming from the pile"
obviously thats a mistake
"that barry jennings got his directions messed up when he looked out the window and saw burning buses etc"
it appears he was looking north
"the WTC7 didnt get hit by debris (or a lot of it)"

i have always seen stills with WTC1 debris on barkley st and beyond but not much video
this shows uncut (the one shot) the damage extending north and would indicate that WTC7 took a large hit

i dont know why i would scream "smoking gun" other than to be sarcastic as i am not a truther (with 700 posts i think i would have been outed by now) even though i do give LIHOP a 1% feasibility

the main reason i point out details is probably for the same reason triforcharity joined up here and several others
were just sick and tired of the "Bill Smith" when it comes to the utter disrespect towards the dead (many of my neighbors are among them), and the contempt for real science or analysis of evidence

again if i read you wrong i apologize

ETA: NEVER FORGET!

 

[chillzero]

ok im trying to wrap my head around this and if i misinterpret it, sorry
since you are addressing me

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I am clearly addressing OneRedEye. Well... I say 'clearly' ... I apologise if I was not clear, although I did my best - I quoted him/her, and I directly referenced him/her in my previous post to which s/he responded - and that was quoted in the post you yourself quoted, as it was a direct response to his/her comments.



I've never accused you of anything, let alone being a truther, and I stated above my own support for triforcharity - in the first post of this chain where I criticise OneRedEye and magi5 by name.

again if i read you wrong i apologize

Ok.
You clearly did.

 

[Justin39640]

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I am clearly addressing OneRedEye. Well... I say 'clearly' ... I apologise if I was not clear, although I did my best - I quoted him/her, and I directly referenced him/her in my previous post to which s/he responded - and that was quoted in the post you yourself quoted, as it was a direct response to his/her comments.



I've never accused you of anything, let alone being a truther, and I stated above my own support for triforcharity - in the first post of this chain where I criticise OneRedEye and magi5 by name.


Ok.
You clearly did.

sorry my confusion
i thought you meant me as in im the OP of the thread lol
again why i had some issues wrapping my head around your statements

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP (snip) The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

i actually hesitated a long while before i decided to respond
i think conflicting ideas are a good thing
they help work out ideas and you come to a logical middle ground where things do agree
when it comes to truthers that doesnt happen
and thats when i get angry

the smoking gun part was really what confused me since so many truthers use that phrase
it does still kinda feel like a shot at me though

i do apologize (care to find a middle ground? lol)

 

[chillzero]

sorry my confusion
i thought you meant me as in im the OP of the thread lol
again why i had some issues wrapping my head around your statements



i actually hesitated a long while before i decided to respond
i think conflicting ideas are a good thing
they help work out ideas and you come to a logical middle ground where things do agree
when it comes to truthers that doesnt happen
and thats when i get angry

the smoking gun part was really what confused me since so many truthers use that phrase
it does still kinda feel like a shot at me though

Oh my!
I just realised that I owe you an apology too.
When I talked about the OP - I was actually thinking of magi5's OP in another thread - which is why I named him/her in my comments. Not you at all.

I am so sorry!

i do apologize (care to find a middle ground? lol)

Sure.

 

[leftysergeant]

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely.

And I have noticed that those vehicles completely consumed tend to occur in large groups. I would speculate on the basis of my own experience, that they were mostly set ablaze by fuel running under them, probably from one vehicle that burned long enough for the gas tank to cook off. This would, of course, cause more to cook off, so that we have a very brief but intense fire. This would tend to reduce them to no longercombustible hulks rather quickly.

Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks.

These may have occurred singly, as a result of ballistic damage or burning debris blowing in through an open window. Burning material like papers under the engine of a car can cause fuel lines to melt and leak. The engine compartment will burn very hot, but only until the fuel puimp loses power and all the fuel is consumed. How long a car will burn if only the appholstery is involved is anybody's guess.

I would suggest, of course, that thick, choking dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. A fire in many fuels will go out in an atmosphere that contains enough air to support human respiration.

 

[OneRedEye]

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP.

Maybe you can tell me which thread that is, since it apparently isn't this one.

Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people...

Yes, yes?

...and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear.

Uhh, curiousity? I realize asking questions at JREF is received much like a fart at the dinner table, but this takes the cake. Perhaps if I'd peppered my post with insults directed at truthers, you'd be less inclined to question my motivation. Ya think?

The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

There's a term for this sort of syndrome, the effects of which you're displaying. It escapes me right now.

The bulge doesn't get much air time anymore. Information was always scarce; the only detail I've seen was in Peter Hayden's account, and it wasn't much. I saw a rare opportunity to get a little more information from a horse's mouth - too good to pass up, even though (on the whole) I could really give a rat's patootie, truth be told. Since it causes people to crawl out of holes and start pointing

"You are not of the body!"

forget it, I withdraw the questions. I don't care anymore.

Are you trying to imply that there was something strange or out of the ordinary because there were some cars that were only partially consumed or had only scorch marks while other cars were completely comsumed?

No, but I personally didn't have an answer as to why it was so, other than just invoking the magic and mystery of the day. leftysergeant, however, did have an answer.

And I have noticed that those vehicles completely consumed tend to occur in large groups. I would speculate on the basis of my own experience, that they were mostly set ablaze by fuel running under them, probably from one vehicle that burned long enough for the gas tank to cook off. This would, of course, cause more to cook off, so that we have a very brief but intense fire. This would tend to reduce them to no longercombustible hulks rather quickly.

These may have occurred singly, as a result of ballistic damage or burning debris blowing in through an open window. Burning material like papers under the engine of a car can cause fuel lines to melt and leak. The engine compartment will burn very hot, but only until the fuel puimp loses power and all the fuel is consumed. How long a car will burn if only the appholstery is involved is anybody's guess.

And an excellent answer it is, thank you. You have experience in firefighting, right? Makes perfect sense. I hadn't noticed the proximity factor and, now that you mention it, my dim recollection is that the partials were more separated than the logjam of cars seen in the video. Quantity-distance.

I would suggest, of course, that thick, choking dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. A fire in many fuels will go out in an atmosphere that contains enough air to support human respiration.

Brilliant observation! There were also blankets of dust and chips on everything. Throwing dirt on the fire, it's how I killed my campfire last weekend, talk about missing the obvious. Thanks.

 

[chillzero]

Maybe you can tell me which thread that is, since it apparently isn't this one.

You're right ... it was this one I was thinking of:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147256

Uhh, curiousity? I realize asking questions at JREF is received much like a fart at the dinner table, but this takes the cake. Perhaps if I'd peppered my post with insults directed at truthers, you'd be less inclined to question my motivation. Ya think?

It's the manner in which you asked and the detail you expect someone to cough up for you just because he was in the vicinity that day. It was rather enthusiastically asking for a lot of information and brought the (other) OP to mind. I'm willing to be proven wrong and will apologise if I am.

 

[newton3376]

No, but I personally didn't have an answer as to why it was so, other than just invoking the magic and mystery of the day. leftysergeant, however, did have an answer.

Fair enough....

If lefty really does have the experience he claims (so far I believe his claims) then he is much more qualified to answer your questions than I am. This is out of my field of expertise.

 

[OneRedEye]

It's the manner in which you asked and the detail you expect someone to cough up for you just because he was in the vicinity that day.

I considered how to word the questions for some time. Finally, I just decided to ask them. In most contexts, that wouldn't arouse any sort of suspicion. It certainly could be considered forthright or even a bit rude and, if it came across that way, I apologize. Honestly, I don't expect anything, though I wanted information and decided to ask. There already are conflicts in the account of the bulge, that's why I asked. If I had the transit measurements in my hot little hands, I wouldn't bother Mr/Ms triforcharity. I also wouldn't dream of bothering (Deputy) Chief Hayden with trite BS by asking him directly for the measurements, but I thought someone who was posting on a board where we are both members might be more... approachable. And, maybe, might know even more than Hayden.

I don't expect another telling to jibe with any other set of statements, but I'd hoped that another fuzzy piece might contribute to a clearer picture overall.

It was rather enthusiastically asking for a lot of information and brought the (other) OP to mind.

It wouldn't be the first time I've come across as foaming at the mouth. The degree of interest in this unusual event may admittedly be bordering on neurotic, but I'm not embarrassed to say so here because I doubt that I'm alone in that. On the fixation scale, it's above earthquakes and even searching for lost mines, but below constraint-based programming (at least for the moment). Dig?

I'm willing to be proven wrong and will apologise if I am.

No need to apologize. Especially if I have no need to prove you wrong! It is telling that I also spent some time before posting deliberating how best to not radiate woo, just because I saw the chance to learn something. Again, it came down to just asking the questions. Some people are genuinely curious; strange thing, I know.

If lefty really does have the experience he claims (so far I believe his claims) then he is much more qualified to answer your questions than I am. This is out of my field of expertise.

The answer was quite satisfactory, in any case.

 

[BigAl]

I considered how to word the questions for some time. Finally, I just decided to ask them. In most contexts, that wouldn't arouse any sort of suspicion. It certainly could be considered forthright or even a bit rude and, if it came across that way, I apologize. Honestly, I don't expect anything, though I wanted information and decided to ask. There already are conflicts in the account of the bulge, that's why I asked. If I had the transit measurements in my hot little hands, I wouldn't bother Mr/Ms triforcharity. I also wouldn't dream of bothering (Deputy) Chief Hayden with trite BS by asking him directly for the measurements, but I thought someone who was posting on a board where we are both members might be more... approachable. And, maybe, might know even more than Hayden.

I have to ask, given your insistence for information, have you read the entire NIST report on WTC7?