WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[femr2]

That wasn't the original talking point.

And ?

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.

And no doubt some of it was.

Your response being to support achimspok's original contention

Nope. My contribution to the thread being to impart my viewpoint on smoke around the South face of WTC 7.

But naturally you'd rather divert the discourse.

Nope. You're working from a false assumption.

However, did you watch the Spak video

Seen it many-a time.

that clearly demonstrates precious little smoke crossing Vesey?

I don't think it's conclusive at all.

Feel free to expand upon your theory by all means.

Hm?? Any chance of an answer?

Hmmm. Yeah. See above Yes ??? Hmm ?? lol.

 

[femr2]

You're asserting that's all coming from WTC 7 ?

 

[alienentity]

Hmm, I have to agree with achimspok, these flames and the smoke are definitely not coming from the windows they're coming out of. Can't be, because the irreducible delusion does not allow for this reality.


Why does Femr2 keep banging on about WTC 1? We're looking directly at WTC 7 evidence here, which he is not able to address directly.

Somehow this seems like a familiar pattern.....

 

[alienentity]

And another fairly easy refutation of said truther claim...

I mean, come on - this is not difficult. Just take a look around floors 22 and 18, for example. You have dark smoke (from oxygen-starved fires™, of course) emanating from the West face, contiguously leading to.....the exact type of smoke billowing out of the windows on the South face.

In fact if you count up from the 16th floor or so and tally the windows where smoke is directly coming from, you get about 20 floors minimum. I would love to see a truther explain away all that evidence.....it would be amusing.

 

[femr2]

Why does Femr2 keep banging on about WTC 1?

Have a guess Sherlock.

Because the same effect is evident, namely it appears as though the entire East face of WTC 1 is emitting smoke, when it is known that it is not.

It is a fairly complex side-effect of multiple particulate matter sources, wind, heat, and some fire.

As I've said before, to make sense of the smoke, you have to look through it to some extent and identify where it's actually coming from.

So which windows on the South face of WTC 7 are emitting smoke AE(911?) ?

We're looking directly at WTC 7 evidence here, which he is not able to address directly.

Nonsense.

I've posted several resources, including...

...showing by far the clearest view of the condition of the South face (by allowing you to see through a lot of the smoke) allowing more reasoned interpretation of sources.

Somehow this seems like a familiar pattern.....

Grow up son.

 

[GlennB]

You're asserting that's all coming from WTC 7 ?

Where did I say that?

 

[alienentity]

Nonsense.

You haven't addressed the many pictures and videos which clearly show smoke and fires on the S face, and cannot be from the other buildings.

Perhaps your comparison to WTC 1 would be relevant if there was closeup photography or video evidence of the same thing. But there isn't, you see.

Comparing apples to oranges is a great way to obfuscate, I'll give you that.

Carry on as you were.....please keep avoiding the direct evidence of WTC 7. It demonstrates very well the way you operate - you do not seek clarification thru detailed examination, you instead seek to confuse and I suppose bamboozle people.

It isn't working here, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[femr2]

I mean, come on - this is not difficult.

...and yet your following assertions are undoubtedly going to suffer from rather inept misinterpretation of the visual information...

Just take a look around floors 22 and 18, for example. You have dark smoke (from oxygen-starved fires™, of course) emanating from the West face

Yes....

contiguously leading to.....the exact type of smoke billowing out of the windows on the South face.

...oh dear. The problem you face there is that the behaviour of the smoke along the SW edge is the same regardless of whether the adjacent or nearby windows are actually broken or not.

You're seeing the effect of, as Achimspok has touched upon, various air movement behaviours, which can be very misleading if trying to conclude where the smoke is actually coming from.

In fact if you count up from the 16th floor or so and tally the windows where smoke is directly coming from

My case in point. Had a feeling you'd mess up here. Ho hum.

you get about 20 floors minimum. I would love to see a truther explain away all that evidence.....it would be amusing.

Howabout I refrain from laughing and simply give you the opportunity to step back from the precipice, take your time and perform a less inept visual information analysis, taking multiple sources into account.

 

[femr2]

Where did I say that?

You didn't, thus the question mark.

 

[femr2]

You haven't addressed the many pictures and videos which clearly show smoke and fires on the S face

Who said there's no smoke on the South face ?
Who said there's no fire, er, on, the South face ?

and cannot be from the other buildings.

Ew. Hand-wave.

Perhaps your comparison to WTC 1 would be relevant if there was closeup photography or video evidence of the same thing. But there isn't, you see.

You absolutely sure about that ?

Comparing apples to oranges is a great way to obfuscate, I'll give you that.

Nonsense. Very similar behaviour. Completely valid comparison.

 

[alienentity]

Femr2 would like to discourage all of you from understanding that the fires burned throughout WTC 7 for several hours, and pictures taken at one time may show different phases of these fires.

By Femr2's metric, if a particular window had no fire or smoke in it at say 12:05pm, then there was no fire there EVER during the day. If we show a picture of that window later, with fire and smoke, this metric is of course shown to be meaningless.

Hence the insistence on the single picture of the 'gash', which is apparently a composite image anyway (meaning its value as a smoke diagnostic is probably ruined), and only represents one phase of the fires.

I see how this works, Femr2. The pattern continues.....
Continue with your deflections, please.

 

[alienentity]

...and yet your following assertions are undoubtedly going to suffer from rather inept misinterpretation of the visual information...


Yes....


...oh dear. The problem you face there is that the behaviour of the smoke along the SW edge is the same regardless of whether the adjacent or nearby windows are actually broken or not.

You're seeing the effect of, as Achimspok has touched upon, various air movement behaviours, which can be very misleading if trying to conclude where the smoke is actually coming from.


My case in point. Had a feeling you'd mess up here. Ho hum.


Howabout I refrain from laughing and simply give you the opportunity to step back from the precipice, take your time and perform a less inept visual information analysis, taking multiple sources into account.

Sorry Femr2, your response is truly meaningless babble.

I go bye bye now, must do some grown-up stuff while you play your toddler semantics in defence of.......nothing. Don't forget to use the potty before it's too late.

 

[femr2]

Sorry Femr2, your response is truly meaningless babble.

I go bye bye now, must do some grown-up stuff while you play your toddler semantics in defence of.......nothing. Don't forget to use the potty before it's too late.

Meaningless babble to you perhaps. Explains a lot. Again, grow up.

I suggest you begin by mapping which windows you can positively (with video confirmation) identify smoke emerging from.

 

[GlennB]

You're seeing the effect of, as Achimspok has touched upon, various air movement behaviours, which can be very misleading if trying to conclude where the smoke is actually coming from.

The smoke is not amorphous billowing smoke crossing the S face westwards (amazingly) and being caught by the wind off the SW edge.

It's plumes of smoke corresponding to individual storeys. Confirmed by several videos and photos. This must be the 5th time I alone have pointed this out, and (I expect) the 5th time you'll avoid the issue with some old waffle. The smoke is coming out of windows.

Meanwhile you have provided precisely zero evidence that much of the smoke is from 5+6 and behaving in a way determined by 'various air movement behaviours'

 

[femr2]

Femr2 would like to discourage all of you from understanding that the fires burned throughout WTC 7 for several hours

Incorrect, though more accurately, you are lying.

and pictures taken at one time may show different phases of these fires.

Did anyone say otherwise ?

By Femr2's metric, if a particular window had no fire or smoke in it at say 12:05pm, then there was no fire there EVER during the day.

Incorrect..aka lie. I'm providing you with reasons and ways to make more accurate interpretation of the visual information.

You're making a fool of yourself by the post.

If we show a picture of that window later, with fire and smoke, this metric is of course shown to be meaningless.

You are in AE la-la land.

Hence the insistence on the single picture of the 'gash',

Nope. Two video's were posted, it's simply a frame of one of them.

which is apparently a composite image anyway

Nope. If you weren't so inept, you'd read the thread and note I've staed exactly what processing was applied...colour auto-levelling.

(meaning its value as a smoke diagnostic is probably ruined)

Meaning you're still talking crap.

and only represents one phase of the fires.

1/29.97th of a second to be more precise.

I see how this works, Femr2. The pattern continues.....
Continue with your deflections, please.

If that's your bizarre interpretation of my contribution, okey dokey, I shall indeed.

 

[femr2]

It's plumes of smoke corresponding to individual storeys. Confirmed by several videos and photos.

Then post those videos.

The two I have posted contradict the italicised text above if you are taking the same line as AE above.

This must be the 5th time I alone have pointed this out, and (I expect) the 5th time you'll avoid the issue with some old waffle. The smoke is coming out of windows.

By all means reference your previous 5 sets of analysis.

Meanwhile you have provided precisely zero evidence that much of the smoke is from 5+6

Why should I be interested in 5+6 ? There's all manner of smoke sources to pick from, and who cares ? Some of the smoke is from WTC7, some isn't.

Identifying actual emission points is the only way to correctly guage and interpret the visual record.

So, again, by all means post references to your prior studies.

and behaving in a way determined by 'various air movement behaviours'

The animations of very similar behaviour for WTC1 are a reasonable introduction imo. Am sure that could be taken further.

 

[Myriad]

What about those firefighters? What did they say?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dragon37]

So I am supposed to take femr2's "expert" youtube and photograph smoke analysis over firefighter testimony? Most of this debate about smoke is a red herring anyway because the majority of these truther boneheads actually only have a layman's experience and understanding, including myself. I guess that makes it easier for them to make poo up but the more they talk about smoke the more I have to chuckle because the smoke doesn't tell me much not matter how much you crop a photo, animate a photo, or show me some grainy youtube video.

It's like the "squibs". Their appearance doesn't surprise me in the least.

IMO they know they have nothing otherwise they would publish their findings and let the larger community of professionals scrutinize their "work". Oh wait I guess that is why they don't publish ... they are afraid of having to defend their work.

 

[femr2]

So I am supposed to take femr2's "expert" youtube and photograph smoke analysis over firefighter testimony?

Depends upon your personal argument.

If you suggest that this image...
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
...shows smoke eminating from every window along the SW edge, then you're wrong, and you should take heed.

If you're saying a few windows, fine.

Similarly for each vertical row of windows Eastwards.

 

[uke2se]

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.


Some does, some doesn't.

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

Please specify window locations.


What ?


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...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/68492381.png[/qimg]

No, I will not sit and count the windows for you. I won't engage in an exercise in futility, as whatever the case may be with the windows, you'll either ignore it or deny it.

The videos I linked shows clearly that smoke is emanating from most of the south side. The smoke is coming from within the windows. Denying this doesn't seem to aid your credibility, so I don't see why you are attempting it.