achimspok - what do you believe happened at WTC7 that is different from the OT?
achimspok - what do you believe happened at WTC7 that is different from the OT?
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Discussion about the origins of the term "truther" has been split to a separate thread here.
Posted By: LashL
1) I believe that the later fires were not a result of the WTC1 collapse.
2) I believe that the smoke on the south side billowed up in the wake flow and came from WTC5 and WTC6
3) I believe that the columns 80 and 81 went down first and prior to 79
4) I believe that almost the entire load of the hanging floorslaps after 81,80, 79 failed was redistributed to the east perimeter and only a insignificant share to the remaining core columns
5) I see the next 12 core columns start to descent at gravity acceleration pulling the perimeter inwards via the floor slaps
6) I see huge chunks of the lower perimeter (floor 4-7) just crossed the street in an upright manner
The NIST "stage 1" of slower than free fall buckling didn't happen.
The slow disintegration of the core causing an avalanche of debris hollowing out the core below the screenwall didn't happen.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Most of your points are beyond my qualifications, but the first two are easy to answer:
The later fires were a result of the earlier fires, and those were indeed a result of the WTC1 collapse. If you believe differently, you have to posit a different cause for which you are not going to have any evidence.
You just said there were fires at WTC7. From fire comes smoke, so there's no need for you to make the easily disproven assertion that the smoke didn't come from WTC 7.
The later fires were a result of the earlier fires, and those were indeed a result of the WTC1 collapse. If you believe differently, you have to posit a different cause for which you are not going to have any evidence.
You just said there were fires at WTC7. From fire comes smoke, so there's no need for you to make the easily disproven assertion that the smoke didn't come from WTC 7.
You asked, I answered. I'm not a criminal investigator. Of course I don't have the evidence for different causes but the known fires went dead. Hours later some other fires started spreading through the floors - all 3 SEC floors coincidentally. However...
...the vast majority of this smoke wasn't caused by fire in WTC7 if any.
Btw, the Spack video you linked shows these early fires that went dead shortly after.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Riiiight. The irreducible delusion at work. The smoke is pouring from the window openings, South face, not East face....gee, I wonder why?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
The "known" fires? The building was burning throughout the day.
The first responders report that more or less all the floors were burning.
Yes, it was. Look at the videos instead of a still photo. You can clearly see that the smoke is billowing out of WTC 7 on virtually every floor.
No, it doesn't.
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
This is why video evidence trumps still photo evidence in this case. In the videos, smoke can be observed exiting the windows of WTC 7, something which is not equally apparent in your still photographs. There's really no room for debate* on this point. The smoke we see is from WTC 7.
* Rational debate, at least. Denial might still come into play.
Last edited:
Some smoke was exiting from some windows on the South face of WTC7, however, much of the scale of smoke is a side-effect of numerous factors...
zomg!!!11!1 Look ! Entire East face of WTC1 on fire !!11!.
Obviously, it's not.
It's smoke from the ruins of WTC2.
Similar was in effect with the very limited footage of the South side of WTC7.
Then I suggest you explain how the entire East face of WTC1 was emitting smoke
This is smoke issuing almost horizintally from broken windows. If it were drifting up from WTC5+6 it wouldn't be making it as far as the top. It would also require a powerful stream of air to be blasting from the building, and what could cause that? There were only light breezes that day.
Last edited:
As is the smoke in the animated GIF I posted above.
Explain away Glenn.
Better still...
...Note the smoke clearing a little and the number of windows along the SW corner that are actually broken.
There's lots of factors at play.
The volume of smoke is misleading and results in poor interpretation as to the actual source of such.
There is no need, as you have already provided a perfectly reasonable explanation. Two buildings, both burning, visually aligned in that film.
This doesn't apply to WTC7 as it was much taller than WTC5+6. Their smoke would not only need to 'survive' up to the 40+ storey level - against the prevailing breeze - without being dispersed but there would also need to be a considerable current of air issuing from those windows to blow the smoke away in near-horizontal plumes of 1-storey depth.
The baton is passed back to you.
Are you under the bizarre impression that WTC2 is still standing ? If so, nope. It's rubble on t'ground. Even if it was still standing it would've been way over to the left from the perspective. (Have footage from the viewpoint if you want to check your, er, viewpoint)...try going through the Onno de Jong clips from the Cumulus DB, save me the bother.Where is the smoke coming from in the WTC1 GIF I showed you Glenn ?
You're making some excellent assertive hand-waving there though. It can't be because...
No games.
Last edited:
???? No
Obviously.
Meanwhile you're avoiding my point - now made for the third time - like the plague.
Any games here are being played purely by you.
Good. Then what on earth did you mean by...
Which two buildings ?
Not at all.
Again, where is the smoke seen apparently emanating from the East face of WTC1 coming from Glenn ?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Just out of interest, then, is that actually smoke you can see below the fire zone, or dust from the WTC2 collapse? If the latter, that would tend not to support any conclusion based on the assumption that it's smoke.
Dave
Smoke/fine particulate matter/...
It looks like it is emanating from the East face of WTC 1, which it clearly is not.
Remarkably similar to the behaviour of the fine particulate matter that also looks like it is emanating from the South face of WTC7, even though most of the windows at the actual locations are not broken, and said fine particulate matter looks like it's emanating from the actual very corner of the building. Remarkable
Must be oozing through the porous building cladding eh.The point you are continuing to avoid is that it is quite valid to doubt the interpretation of the A/V material, as similar behaviour can be seen for WTC1 with a known condition...ie not on fire in the region...the East face is not engulfed in flames.
So...
1) Which two buildings did you mean ?
2) Where is the particulate matter that looks like it's emanating from WTC1 East face coming from ?
3) What did you mean by *Two buildings, both burning, visually aligned in that film.* ?
4) Why do you think *This doesn't apply to WTC7 as it was much taller than WTC5+6.* ?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Yes, but if this photo was taken very shortly after the collapse of WTC2, which threw dust out laterally, then that would be an explanation for the appearance of the photograph which could not possibly apply to WTC7.
But if the "known condition" is "not on fire, but having just had another building collapse a very short distance from it", then we know that WTC7 did not share this condition. So it's rather critical that we should know exactly when this picture was taken.
Who are you talking to here?
Dave