Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Dave Rogers]

The fires were much, much worse, and no doubt the structural damage was as well.

"No doubt"? You're good at making wild, unsupported guesses instead of actually assessing the evidence, aren't you?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Try me.

Dave Thomas already did. You couldn't be bothered to watch it.

By the way, have you ever heard a proverb that starts "There's no smoke without..."?

Dave

 

[BigAl]

You've seen the 80 GB video personally? Where can you access this?

On my PC. I downloaded the whole thing. You can too.

How to:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-...udies-nist-cumulus-video-database-releasedtoo.

 

[ergo]

"I know! Let's all change the subject and try and get ergo back on the defensive, since T.A.M. made a claim that he can't back up and it embarrasses all of us!"

 

[ergo]

On my PC. I downloaded the whole thing. You can too.

So you can snip us a segment then. Great.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To be on the defensive, you need a position to defend.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you can snip us a segment then. Great.

Make sure it's less than a minute long. Then ergo will at least watch all of it, although he'll probably then say that WTC7 only burned for 57 seconds.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button. Why would that be? When they were taking pictures of just about everything else.

I do not see the word "raging" used in the above...your words, not mine. Raging is subjective. In my opinion the videos I presented to you DO contain raging fires. Are they as big in those videos as the one you presented of WTC5, no, not out through the windows at least...but like I said, who set the standard for "raging fires"??? you???

As for the gash, well go through NISTs stuff, but there is this, at the 30-40 second mark

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

Let me guess, you will call this persistent, moves when the camera moves gash, a computer or video glitch, right????

TAM

 

[ergo]

Dave is funnee!

 

[BigAl]

So you can snip us a segment then. Great.

There are a few in this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184633

 

[T.A.M.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4&feature=related

another one...

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

as for the photos of the fires, there are too many to link to, so go look...here I will tell you how.

Go to GOOGLE. Type in: WTC7 fires. Hit return.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

"I know! Let's all change the subject and try and get ergo back on the defensive, since T.A.M. made a claim that he can't back up and it embarrasses all of us!"

i backed it up silly. You asked for phots and videos of the FIRES (no adjective attached) and the huge Gash. I have provide you with them.

NEXT!!!

TAM

 

[ergo]

As for the gash, well go through NISTs stuff, but there is this, at the 30-40 second mark

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

I don't see a gash. The corner looks intact to me. I see some blackened windows, facade damage and windows broken.

I see something, and in another video, toward the middle of the building that looks like a clean, vertical, rectangular piece of building is missing the length of the building, as if it was built that way, but if that's there, and that's the "gash" that is claimed, we should see that in many other photos and videos.

Where are the photos?

 

[T.A.M.]

That is one of the few videos that I have seen of that side of the tower, that high up, that close up.

Can you explain the elongated rectangular shape behind the smoke, given the building did not have that built into its facade??

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't see a gash. The corner looks intact to me. I see some blackened windows, facade damage and windows broken.

I see something, and in another video, toward the middle of the building that looks like a clean, vertical, rectangular piece of building is missing the length of the building, as if it was built that way, but if that's there, and that's the "gash" that is claimed, we should see that in many other photos and videos.

Where are the photos?

I'll confess, there are not any good actual PHOTOGRAPHS, that I have seen, of the gash.

How ever, I provided you 3 out of 4, so I think you should retract some of your statement as false.

Then again, I expect no less then your statement from a truther.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

That is one of the few videos that I have seen of that side of the tower, that high up, that close up.

Can you explain the elongated rectangular shape behind the smoke, given the building did not have that built into its facade??

TAM

Gravy says it corresponds to the emergency fuel system, even though it doesn't. I'd be interested to hear other what others have said about it.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes me as well. I do not seem to recall there being such an entity on pre 9/11 photos, though it has been so long since I looked at such, I could be wrong. I have heard many claim this is the gash. I also recall the photo (that truthers allege is photoshopped) of the corner gash way down on the buildings South West? corner.

TAM

 

[ergo]

You've definitely provided videos that hint at the gash, which I hadn't seen before. Thank you. You haven't provided photos, and I have not seen any images of fires that are larger than the six-window one.

As for the gash that seems to be there behind the smoke, I would need a clearer picture. Hard to believe that columns ejected from the "natural" collapse of WTC1, over building 6, and across Vesey Street could take out such a clean, rectangular, vertical section of building when all other debris damage was more organic, random, asymmetrical. A partial or incomplete implosion would make more sense.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the first photo on this page,

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Is a better photo of the Gash that is spoken of.

TAM

Edit: the above link, much further down (after a great WTC7 Gash critique), is a pre 9/11 photo of that side of the building, and I see nothing resembling the rectangle. However, I suppose the photo could have been of the building prior to an installment of such...I am not convinced.