• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Dave Thomas

ergo said:
Actually, Washington St. continues south of the WTC site, so I was wrong. He was obviously speaking of the south face.



Why is it so hard for you guys to produce a simple picture of these fires?
Click to expand...

Why don't you watch what we post?
 
Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.

You're arguing for invisi-fires which burned for hours, but somehow all the material in all the peripheral office space doesn't ignite? How does that work?

And if the outer periphery of the building isn't burning, why does it descend?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
You don't know? :D
Click to expand...
You don't know fire.
wtc7fire3.jpg


ergo said:
...
Why is it so hard for you guys to produce a simple picture of these fires?
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.
Click to expand...

Hence the old adage 'where there's smoke, there's no fire' (in Truther circles this one is getting really popular :cool:)

Honestly, that canard isn't worth a serious response. The argument is going to be that huge amounts of smoke are NOT evidence of fire? <Facepalm>:boggled:

And if the outer periphery of the building isn't burning, why does it descend?
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp
 
ergo said:
Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.

You're arguing for invisi-fires which burned for hours, but somehow all the material in all the peripheral office space doesn't ignite? How does that work?

And if the outer periphery of the building isn't burning, why does it descend?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUWnaldv9Eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOiQe4bwA5k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wKZssMgVlo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MidXm6Q4Etg&feature=related

TAM:)
 
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 'They also met a Deputy Chief
who had just returned from inside the building, and he reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.23 He indicated that the stairway he was in was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. '

Smoke, and a lot of fire. Hmmm.. Inside the building...uhuh. Can't..connect...the...dots... Nope, the smoke did not come from fires. Couldn't have. No way. :)
 
ergo said:
Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.
Click to expand...

Wrong for a modern office building.

...A fire in a building with modern fittings and materials generates smoke that is thick and black, obscures vision, causes great difficulty in breathing and can block the escape routes.
Click to expand...

From:

Fire Safety Risk Assessment - Small and Medium Places of Assembly
Published 5 June 2006
Type(s) Manuals, leaflets and booklets, Good practice and guidance
Site Fire and resilience
ISBN 978 1 85112 820 4
Price .12.00 (free to download below)

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firesafetyrisk7
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Why is it so hard for you guys to produce a simple picture of these fires?
Click to expand...

Because .....

To the south was Ground Zero, where the world's 2 largest buildings had recently collapsed among scenes of indescribable destruction and death. It was no place to go to take photographs or film. And WTC5+6 were smashed up, burning furiously and 'in the way'. Altogether too dangerous.

To the south-east was a huge plume of dust and smoke blown by the prevailing wind, obscuring attempts at photography.

To the south-west was plausible, and Steve Spak did pretty well with his efforts. But with WTC5+6 still in the way, plus emergency services all over the place he was limited to a sharp angle of view.

Then the area was cleared.

But, all along, I'd guess that nobody really thought it was terribly important to record stuff that would persuade deluded punks way ahead in 2010 that there really was extensive fire in WTC7. Nobody was in any doubt and people pretty much had better things to do.

Hope that helps.
 
beachnut said:
You don't know fire.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ace Baker proved these flames were faked using layer masks and video compositing. Devilishly clever, those NWO minions.
NWO must've paid the FDNY guys a mint to make them support the 'official story', to falsely report extensive fires, to pretend they had to give up on WTC 7 because it wasn't stable; to turn their backs on the hundreds of their brothers who perished that day.

Truthers are really onto something alright. It comes out of the rear-end of certain flying mammals, and it lands right on top of the heros of 9/11.
 
alienentity said:
Honestly, that canard isn't worth a serious response. The argument is going to be that huge amounts of smoke are NOT evidence of fire?
Click to expand...

Active open fires--in other words, raging fires--do not produce thick, grey billows of smoke. So you're arguing for invisi-fires that burn for hours but never ignite the rest of the building. How does that work?
 
ergo said:
Active open fires--in other words, raging fires--do not produce thick, grey billows of smoke. So you're arguing for invisi-fires that burn for hours but never ignite the rest of the building. How does that work?
Click to expand...

please take a look at the videos of some very large (in terms of full involvement) fires, ACTIVE, and producing a TONNE of billowing black and grey smoke.

And the goal posts are gonna be moving in 3....2....1....

TAM:)
 
ergo said:
Yeah, thick, grey billows of smoke. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes....those videos show large fires, and from them are LARGE, BILLOWING plumes of GREY, WHITE, and BLACK smoke...take a look at them all, and then just admit it was a stupid comment for you to make...

TAM:)
 
ergo said:
Actually, Washington St. continues south of the WTC site, so I was wrong. He was obviously speaking of the south face.



Why is it so hard for you guys to produce a simple picture of these fires?
Click to expand...


Help me out here, finish this sentence

Where there's smoke there's _________

Failing that as I know you will. Please point out the thermite pouring out the windows of building seven. Or point out how many explosions you hear in this extended video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6790722824543352916#
 
GlennB said:
To the south-west was plausible, and Steve Spak did pretty well with his efforts. But with WTC5+6 still in the way, plus emergency services all over the place he was limited to a sharp angle of view.

Then the area was cleared.

But, all along, I'd guess that nobody really thought it was terribly important to record stuff that would persuade deluded punks way ahead in 2010 that there really was extensive fire in WTC7. Nobody was in any doubt and people pretty much had better things to do.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Quite. Who could have imagined that an army of internet deniers would actively seek to pollute the historic record? That they would attack the heros of 9/11? I bet nobody did.

' Mayday calls heard on the radios following the buildings collapsing.11 As a result of these calls, emergency responders initially were focused on rescuing trapped personnel and were not
addressing any issues associated with the condition of WTC 7. '
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 p 298

'At 11:02, the Mayor of New York City ordered the full evacuation of the city below Canal Street.6 At
11:30 a.m., NYPD established an outer perimeter security zone that extended to Canal and Houston
Streets.6 No unauthorized individuals were allowed into lower Manhattan below Canal Street. '
p299

And ERgo has already admitted his error and allowed that Vitchers could have correctly stated that all 47 floors were involved. So the Truther viewpoint is again invalidated as neglectful of the evidence or just plain false.

Nothing new here, unfortunately.
 
You guys aren't going to get honest dialogue here. You're wasting your time. I asked a simple question 4 times with no luck. Give it a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom