• 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 Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

twinstead said:
You know Red, you'd get a big boost in your weakened credibility if you stood up and told Bill his made-up theories are ludicrous. You can still do this and believe 911 was an inside job, so it's not like you have to change your world view or anything. Seriously. Bill is over the top with this stuff. Don't you remember when he suggested smoke generators were planted in WTC1 and 2 to make it seem like the fires were more widespread than they actually were? Come on.
Click to expand...

Bill or anyone else is allowed to come up with the same kind of conjecture as NIST.
 
WUBRINY63 said:
Bill or anyone else is allowed to come up with the same kind of conjecture as NIST.
Click to expand...

There's a whole crapload of eminent experts who contributed to the NIST report. Pardon me if I don't agree with your flippant equating their effort with bill's ignorant ramblings. Hey, if it makes you feel better about your little cult, have at it, but I live in the real world.
 
bill smith said:
If you take WTC7 or instance and the film of it collapsing there seems to be no fire left coming out of the windows of the North side (which is the most common view). That would mean that the fires there had already burned out. Yet on the other or South side of the building gigantic palls of smoke were pumping (or being pumped) out of the building and were were rising skywards. It is interesting to note that this smoke was not shot through with slames and appearded to be absolutely uniform in colour and composition.

It is a pity ( or a coincidence) that it collapsed just as the light was bginning to fade because then we would have clearly seen if the smoke was being backlit by fires.

When a building has a serious fire the flames normally blaze out he indows. When that happens the smoke rises away from the top of the flames. The area where the slame is is clear to see with the smoke rising away from it.

I would swear that there were smoke-pots in WTC7.

(PS. If you search for smoke-pots you may get some unexpected returns)
Click to expand...

Bill you ignorant slut.

The wind that day was from the north. There were a few windows on the north side that were broken, on fire floors BUT almost all windows on the south side were broken. Which way then would you expect most of the smoke produced to have gone? Upwind through fewer openings or downwind through gaping openings?

Furthermore you are aware that the floors that the fires were on were below the line of sight from most of the videos of the collapse that were taken from the north side?

Furthermore I assume that you are aware that the CTBUH has also questioned whether the contraction of structural elements during the cool down phase might have been just as easily responsible for the beam coming off its seat as the NIST conclusion that thermal expansion during heating did it?

Both senarios are plausible.

Your utterly ridiculous contentions, which are backed by no more than your own conjecture and driven by a political stance, are not!
 
bill smith said:
I don't see the relevence. Here's a good example pf flames burning out the windows with the smoke rising away from the top of the flames.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ
Click to expand...

What is amazing is the relatively small amount of smoke exiting the window of WTC 5 in that video. Now considering that all the windows in WTC 5 were out AND the fact that the wind, again, from the north one can quite plausibly assume that the great bulk of smoke being produced was exiting from the south side of the building which would be the opposite side from which this video was taken.

That or maybe there were just fewer smoke pots in WTC 5:D
 
WUBRINY63 said:
Bill or anyone else is allowed to come up with the same kind of conjecture as NIST.
Click to expand...

Sure, anyone with the same amount of experience, education and training as the NIST team.

I believe I have more relevent experience, education and training on technical matters than ol' bill does. I don't measure up to the NIST team though.
 
If a controlled demolition is an explosives initiated gravitational driven collapse, shouldn't the WTC 7 collapse look similar because it was a fire initiated gravitational driven collapse?:)
 
TheBigKahuna said:
If a controlled demolition is an explosives initiated gravitational driven collapse, shouldn't the WTC 7 collapse look similar because it was a fire initiated gravitational driven collapse?:)
Click to expand...
Welcome!
Give the man(?) a cigar! A CD is in-fact a gravity driven collapse, so yes it would look similar. Some day (I'm not holding my breath) the "truthers" will get a clue.
 
bill smith said:
Effectively what you say is the absolute Truth Twinstead. No rational person could say that WTC7 did not look enough like controlled demolition as to require a new 9/11 investigation.

And we all know that if there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.
Click to expand...
The cool part about WTC7 is when a truther uses WTC7 as their smoking gun for a nut case conspiracy theory they prove they are knowledge free on a variety of specialties. No math, no physics, no engineering are the signs of woo for you too.
 
RedIbis said:
True. Everyone makes mistakes on here. It's just funny when someone will criticize as TL did only to make a mistake in nearly every post.
Click to expand...

Red, you have learned the dodge factor quite well. I don't need to point them out since others have, but perhaps you may yawn and take a sip of Guiness.
 
jaydeehess said:
Bill you ignorant slut.

The wind that day was from the north. There were a few windows on the north side that were broken, on fire floors BUT almost all windows on the south side were broken. Which way then would you expect most of the smoke produced to have gone? Upwind through fewer openings or downwind through gaping openings?

Furthermore you are aware that the floors that the fires were on were below the line of sight from most of the videos of the collapse that were taken from the north side?

Furthermore I assume that you are aware that the CTBUH has also questioned whether the contraction of structural elements during the cool down phase might have been just as easily responsible for the beam coming off its seat as the NIST conclusion that thermal expansion during heating did it?

Both senarios are plausible.

Your utterly ridiculous contentions, which are backed by no more than your own conjecture and driven by a political stance, are not!
Click to expand...

Having red shoes does not make me a slut. A political slut either.

For the rest I find that your contentions hold far less water than mine do by a long shot. Few people, even here on the jref will be peruaded by stuff like ''...the fires were on were below the line of sight from most of the videos of the collapse...''
 
TheBigKahuna said:
If a controlled demolition is an explosives initiated gravitational driven collapse, shouldn't the WTC 7 collapse look similar because it was a fire initiated gravitational driven collapse?:)
Click to expand...

Can I put you on my list of jref people who agree that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition then ?
 
bill smith said:
If you take WTC7 or instance and the film of it collapsing there seems to be no fire left coming out of the windows of the North side (which is the most common view). That would mean that the fires there had already burned out. Yet on the other or South side of the building gigantic palls of smoke were pumping (or being pumped) out of the building and were were rising skywards. It is interesting to note that this smoke was not shot through with slames and appearded to be absolutely uniform in colour and composition.

It is a pity ( or a coincidence) that it collapsed just as the light was bginning to fade because then we would have clearly seen if the smoke was being backlit by fires.

When a building has a serious fire the flames normally blaze out he indows. When that happens the smoke rises away from the top of the flames. The area where the slame is is clear to see with the smoke rising away from it.

I would swear that there were smoke-pots in WTC7.

(PS. If you search for smoke-pots you may get some unexpected returns)
Click to expand...

I see your poor research skills haven't improved.
 
DGM said:
Welcome!
Give the man(?) a cigar! A CD is in-fact a gravity driven collapse, so yes it would look similar. Some day (I'm not holding my breath) the "truthers" will get a clue.
Click to expand...

Yes...I think that this qualifies for the list.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
What is amazing is the relatively small amount of smoke exiting the window of WTC 5 in that video. Now considering that all the windows in WTC 5 were out AND the fact that the wind, again, from the north one can quite plausibly assume that the great bulk of smoke being produced was exiting from the south side of the building which would be the opposite side from which this video was taken.

That or maybe there were just fewer smoke pots in WTC 5:D
Click to expand...

Do you think that the design of WTC7 was a poor one in that WTC5 did not collapse from vastly more serious fires as you can see in the video ? (Even though NIST says that the design of WTC7 was fine )
 
bill smith said:
Do you think that the design of WTC7 was a poor one in that WTC5 did not collapse from vastly more serious fires as you can see in the video ? (Even though NIST says that the design of WTC7 was fine )
Click to expand...

You might want to read up on WTC5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center
Five World Trade Center was a 9-story low-rise office building built in 1970-72 at New York City's World Trade Center. It suffered severe damage and partial collapse on its upper floors as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Click to expand...
Floors 4 through 9 suffered partial collapse and/or fire damage. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. Some of the collapse was due to impact from steel and debris from World Trade Center 1 (North Tower). Other collapsed sections were due to fire damage. Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8. The exterior facade suffered severe fire damage. The upper floors (5-9) were on fire after the second tower collapse.
Click to expand...
The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom