WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[femr2]

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.

Which I do.

It's about 1 minute before WTC 1 initiation, shortly before this...

(I can determine the exact time if required)

Who are you talking to here?

Dave

Oh, sorry. My bad. Entire post was really intended for GlennB.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's about 1 minute before WTC 1 initiation,

OK. It was rather crucial to your argument that you point that out.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

3) What did you mean by *Two buildings, both burning, visually aligned in that film.* ?

Are you under the impression WTC2 stopped issuing smoke after its collapse? And that the smoke plume would be behind WTC1 in that view? Does that smoke appear to be coming from individual storeys of WTC1? Nice distraction you've got going here, fem.

Meanwhile - back to the topic you will move heaven and earth to avoid addressing ...

The Spak video from which the still I posted was taken is :

here

A number of times he pans down to a view along Vesey St. For 'the smoke that appears to be issuing from WTC7' (to put it neutrally) to have its source at WTC6 as much smoke would need to be crossing Vesey St from WTC6 as is appearing to be issuing from WTC7, if not more.

It isn't. You can see sky and buildings beyond. Smoke does billow into Vesey from WTC6 but in nothing like sufficient quantity, fem. In fact, there's precious little of it moving N.

Also try not to get confused about intact windows on the W side and smashed windows on the S.

 

[Myriad]

You know who I bet would be pretty good at telling where smoke is coming from? Firefighters. Because after all, their lives and safety, as well as their ability to carry out their mission, depends on being able to tell what's on fire and what isn't. I mean, it would be pretty embarrassing if firefighters broke all the windows in a house and stuck hoses in and hosed it down, and then it turned out all the smoke was really coming from the house next door, or from 4,000 cub scouts playing with smoldering cattail punks nearby, right? And imagine if they were in a burning building, and instead of standing in room that wasn't on fire and spraying water into an adjacent room that was, they accidently did it the other way around. That would be worse than embarrassing, they'd all burn up like that bad guy at the end of that movie, right? So I bet they're trained and drilled on that all the time -- the firefighters I mean, not the cub scouts -- maybe they have packs of flash cards with pictures of things on them, some on fire and some not, and they have to answer "on fire" or "not on fire" (or maybe point a little model hose at the one that's on fire) for each pair. Or something like that. Or maybe they even learn this from experience, from seeing lots more actual things actually on fire from up close in a few calls than most of us will see in a lifetime.

So, if my hypothesis that firefighters know how to tell what is on fire and what is not makes sense, then we maybe should consider, what did firefighters say about Building 7 on 9/11?

Does anyone know?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

You know who I bet would be pretty good at telling where smoke is coming from?

Anyone who wants to have a look...




As this point still seems shrouded in fine particulate matter (pardon the pun) I suggest this recent discussion is split, as it's clearly a bit off topic.

I have no problem getting round to illustrating which windows along the SW edge of WTC7 were actually broken, comparing that to the particulate matter in the vacinity and making more detailed observation of the behavioural similarities to apparent emissions along the NE edge of WTC 1 (which we know did not originate from the apparent locations).

ETA: Note that I'm not saying there was no fire on the South side of WTC7. What I am saying is that there is quite a bit of misinterpretation of the AV material, which leads certain folk to significantly overestimate the scale and abundance of such...primitive *smoke near entire face, therefore entire face on fire*.

 

[alienentity]

1)
2) I believe that the smoke on the south side billowed up in the wake flow and came from WTC5 and WTC6

Let's focus on this claim, and observe the following picture. Multiple images confirm that smoke was billowing directly from more than 15 floors simultaneously. No further comment necessary. achimspok is clearly wrong.

ps, just in case further obfuscation from either Femr2 or achimspok follows (what are the chances of that? ) it is physically impossible for smoke to be (as it clearly is) thicker in the area of the window opening, but thinner in the wall space below or above, and still be coming from another building.
This is because the airflow was North to South thru WTC 7, so if achimspok were correct, the exact opposite would be observed.

 

[alienentity]

 

[Myriad]

Anyone who wants to have a look...

Well, no, actually, because I am not a trained experienced firefighter and I am not on the scene viewing it first-hand. I freely acknowledge that I could be deceived as to the origin of smoke in photographs or videos by unusual convection, lighting, biased selection of images, tricky camera angles, or any number of other factors.

That's why I think it's most relevant and appropriate to ask, what did the trained experienced firefighters on the scene viewing it first-hand have to say about the condition of Building 7?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

Multiple images confirm that smoke was billowing directly from more than 15 floors simultaneously. No further comment necessary.

ZOMG!!11!!1!!

Look ! Entire East face of WTC 1 engulfed if fire !!11!11!

Smoke billowing from more than 50 floors simultaneously.

No further comment necessary.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have to agree with Myriad here. If only there were some record of what firefighters actually said about WTC7 at the time, we'd be able to clear this one up.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

femr2, do you have some type of video solipsism? If it's not on video, it couldn't have happened? Do you trust video analysis over firefighters actions on that day?

 

[twinstead]

femr2, do you have some type of video solipsism? If it's not on video, it couldn't have happened? Do you trust video analysis over firefighters actions on that day?

IMO femr2 trusts anything that supports his position, and nothing that doesn't. It's really as simple as that

 

[femr2]

Do you trust video analysis over firefighters actions opinions on that day?

With good quality video of specific regions being commented upon, with which unlimited number of people can spend as much time as required analysing specific details and improving correct interpretation (which can include firefighters)...over heat-of-the-moment interpretations in horrendously difficult situations...


Absolutely.

 

[uke2se]

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...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/968349766.gif[/qimg]
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

Once again for those with problems reading: In the videos you can clearly see smoke emitted from the windows of WTC 7. It is not residual smoke from an earlier collapse, nor is it fire smoke from surrounding buildings. The smoke comes from within WTC 7.

I realize it's hard to give up on a conspiracy talking point, but this one is pretty stupid as the evidence is so clear, and because of the fact that the person I responded to already admitted that WTC 7 was on fire.

 

[uke2se]

With good quality video of specific regions being commented upon, with which unlimited number of people can spend as much time as required analysing specific details and improving correct interpretation (which can include firefighters)...over heat-of-the-moment interpretations in horrendously difficult situations...


Absolutely.

Good. In the case of WTC 7, the video evidence and the first responder testimony converge nicely on the fact that WTC 7 was immersed in fires. I take it you agree with this then.

 

[Sabretooth]

With good quality video of specific regions being commented upon, with which unlimited number of people can spend as much time as required analysing specific details and improving correct interpretation (which can include firefighters)...over heat-of-the-moment interpretations in horrendously difficult situations...


Absolutely.

There isn't an irony meter big enough in the universe to measure that statement...

 

[femr2]

In the videos you can clearly see smoke emitted from the windows of WTC 7.

Which windows ?

With the video's I posted you should be able to state which specific windows.

You'll find that much of the smoke that appears to emanate from windows....doesn't, as the windows are not broken.

It is not residual smoke from an earlier collapse, nor is it fire smoke from surrounding buildings. The smoke comes from within WTC 7.

Some does, some doesn't.

The point of note is from which locations on the facade of WTC 7.

Please specify window locations.

I realize it's hard to give up on a conspiracy talking point

What ?

the person I responded to already admitted that WTC 7 was on fire.

And ?

Was *the entire south face engulfed in fire*, or was smoke emanating from a few windows, or ...?

Here's a pretty useful still from one of the video's I linked, that shows (via simple auto-levelling of the colour information) a view through the smoke. The source video looks much like the thick dense smoke views without the colour processing...

 

[tsig]

There isn't an irony meter big enough in the universe to measure that statement...

That's the first time I've ever seen someone post 'pics or it didn't happen' and mean it in a serious manner.

 

[GlennB]

The Spak video from which the still I posted was taken is :
here
A number of times he pans down to a view along Vesey St. For 'the smoke that appears to be issuing from WTC7' (to put it neutrally) to have its source at WTC6 as much smoke would need to be crossing Vesey St from WTC6 as is appearing to be issuing from WTC7, if not more.

It isn't. You can see sky and buildings beyond. Smoke does billow into Vesey from WTC6 but in nothing like sufficient quantity, fem. In fact, there's precious little of it moving N.

ETA: Note that I'm not saying there was no fire on the South side of WTC7. What I am saying is that there is quite a bit of misinterpretation of the AV material, which leads certain folk to significantly overestimate the scale and abundance of such...primitive *smoke near entire face, therefore entire face on fire*.

That wasn't the original talking point. It was achimspok's claim that much of the WTC7 smoke originated in WTC5+6, was carried up and across Vesey in some kind of vortex, spread westwards across WTC7 against the wind, and gave the impression of issuing from WTC7 when caught by the breeze at the edge of the building. Your response being to support achimspok's original contention with:

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...

But naturally you'd rather divert the discourse. However, did you watch the Spak video, linked above, that clearly demonstrates precious little smoke crossing Vesey? Hm?? Any chance of an answer?

My bolding throughout.

 

[GlennB]

Let's focus on this claim, and observe the following picture. Multiple images confirm that smoke was billowing directly from more than 15 floors simultaneously. No further comment necessary. achimspok is clearly wrong.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum1.jpg

Yeah. If cooking our dinner and watching Salem's Lot (I want those 2 hours of my life back) hadn't intervened I'd have got round to posting that photo. And others such as this, not long before collapse and when WTC6 was adding little.