WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

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.

femr2, I know that you hate comments like this, but if there was a "so what" or kind of a point to your analysis, it would be better received. Not all of the floors of wtc7 were smoking at exactly the same time in this video or photo, therefore __________. That sort of thing.

I think that alienentity was referring to a different composite image of yours, referring to the "gash" in wtc7, by the way.
 
Diagnosis Of Talented Graphic Artists Confirms Mind Over Matter Possible
If You Don’t Mind It Doesn’t Matter
What The Facts Are.



Team Of Mental Health Professionals File $1MM Randi Claim
 
No. If it would - hypothetically - head easterly while bowing - hypothetically - downwards while in fact the NW corner is almost static ... what do you think how much the roofline would stretch towards east and ground? 5-6 meters or so?
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5552/nokink.gif
My very own problem is, I cannot see any stretching of the wall nor do I see any downward bowing.
Found YougeneDebs parallax video, After viewing two very different perspectives the north east corner does appear to me to be moving north not east as I had thought
http://www.youtube.com/user/YougeneDebs#p/u/2/qPUW4UAsCEA

 
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.

See the problem I have is there is no way to tell exactly how many windows the smoke is emanating from. Whether it is few or many it doesn't really matter because I don't know how one can make assumptions on the nature of the fire from the smoke alone. All one can say, that wasn't there and trying to deal with them, is there is lots of smoke. Even making assumptions on the colour or movement of the smoke is an iffy business. What is burning can influence the colour of the smoke and wind flowing around and air within the buildings can create a wide variety of patterns without giving away the actual intensity and magnitude of the fires.

I honestly see nothing in any of the smoke evidence that truthers have ever presented. I go by the testimony of firefighters for 7 WTC and the steel evidence for the towers.
 
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.

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg[/qimg]

I would absolutely agree. It appears from this still that a large portion of the smoke you see is coming from floors 30 and down. Most of the smoke above that seems to be from a chimney-type effect, where the wind is blowing down the most visable side and causing a vaccuum almost to pull the smoke up the side of the building.

Does it APPEAR that there is fire on all floors? Sure. DO I personally think there is? No. BUT, do I think there is fire on 20 or so floors? Absolutely.
 
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?) ? ;)


Nonsense.

I've posted several resources, including...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/68492381.png[/qimg]
...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.


Grow up son.

Do you have an aproximate time for this photo? It appears to me that this was taken earlier in the day, or very late in the day.

Not to mention the grainy video is difficult to tell even where the smoke is coming from, let alone which windows.
 
I believe the original argument was that the smoke coming out of WTC 7 was not from WTC 7, but instead WTC 5 & 6. The claim was wrong to begin with since it's obvious in the video footage that's not the case. And I also have to ask the "so what" question :\ You can get into particulars about where the smoke was emanating from fine I guess, but the amount suggests major fire "somewhere" inside the building out of the view of cameras.

@tri: The photo femr posted is from late in the afternoon if I recall correctly. It's several hours after the pic that glenn posted.
 
Last edited:
I am seeing that now.

Is it possible for some of that smoke to be coming from 5&6 WTC? Yes and no. Could it have been coming from 6WTC? Sure. The winds that day were out of the NNW at about 4mph. This would be putting the wind literally coming directly down the west face.

Once it hit the SW corner of the building, it would cause a swirling action, possibly bringing smoke from 6WTC up into the area of 7WTC. How much? Not too much would be my opinion, due to the wind's low speed. If I were to put an estimate as to how much of that smoke is from 6WTC, I would say less than 10%, possibly about 5%.

I highly doubt any of it is from 5WTC, due to the fact that it sits on the SE corner of WTC, where the wind would actually be blowing TOWARDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...nt_and_Site_Plan_(building_7_highlighted).jpg

THis is the map I am using. Take note, it is NOT correct. The orientation is wrong. It should be tilted towards the right about 45o
 
femr2, I know that you hate comments like this, but if there was a "so what" or kind of a point to your analysis, it would be better received.

If you're following the various differing opinions being thrown around on this simple discussion on this simple thread, you should pick up on an important point...

Everyone has a pretty different opinion of what windows were emanating smoke, where fire may or may not have been, etc, etc...


I have been highlighting the simple fact that interpretation of the visual information is very prone to exactly that, misinterpretation, and that unless great care is taken to do things, such as video colour level processing to see through the smoke/dust it is very easy to end up making false assertions about which specific areas smoke and fire are present.


NIST performed cataloguing of WTC7 appearance, and from the checks I have made, have again not done a great job of it.

(This is for the towers, but I'll probably upload similar for WTC7, but so you know what I'm talking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siel3MpOabw)


The *so what* implication is therefore the extent to which NIST misinterpreted the visual information, and the extent to which errors would over-estimate the internal state of the building at various times...rather important of course.
 
The *so what* implication is therefore the extent to which NIST misinterpreted the visual information, and the extent to which errors would over-estimate the internal state of the building at various times...rather important of course.
OK, but then I have to take it one step further. If you think you have evidence that NIST mis-interpreted the visual information for WTC7, and you think this is important, why won't you tell them?

ETA - having watched your WTC1 video with your interpretation of the windows, I'd ask how does your interpretation jive with the physical evidence, as found in the NIST paper on WTC1?
 
Last edited:
OK, but then I have to take it one step further. If you think you have evidence that NIST mis-interpreted the visual information for WTC7, and you think this is important, why won't you tell them?
Not my bag. If someone wants to pick up any of the numerous issues I've highlighted with the NIST reports, they are welcome to do so.

ETA - having watched your WTC1 video with your interpretation of the windows
Not sure you've interpreted that video correctly. It's simply a copy of the images within the NIST report compiled together. There's no personal interpretation going on.
 
NIST performed cataloguing of WTC7 appearance, and from the checks I have made, have again not done a great job of it.

NIST wasn't the only 1's cataloguing the appearance of WTC7:

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
 
NIST wasn't the only 1's cataloguing the appearance of WTC7:

And a fine example of how heat-of-battle interpretation can be inaccurate, in addition to how the chinese-whispers effect works. For example...

on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
...with a following question being...
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

At what point did a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors turn into fire on the 20 floors ?

It is also probable that the hole in question was what has now been termed as the *gash*.


Eyewitness statements, and also their subsequent chinese-whisper reinterpretations and rewordings...are not reliable.

In specific circumstances, impartial video evidence is much preferred ;)
 
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.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7lateafternoon.jpg[/qimg]

WTC6 was adding little? Look at the shadows. That's early afternoon.

You guys should watch the entire Steven Spack video. I was able to map the entire south face damage (before NIST came up with a mapping that contradicted their earlier estimate of 50% hollowed out south nonsense). How is it possible that I did it? Because everytime the wind changed a little you can see almost the entire south face but not at once.
The smoke came from WTC6 and a pile of debris right next to the damaged SW corner of WTC7.
Hess and Jennings were in the building after the collapses. They reported a small fire at the 8th floor west.
You should try to understand the effect of the wind. The apparent horizontal streams along the corner are exactly how it looks like.

Here is an interesting view of the south face. I'm astonished that I cannot find that enlightening view in High Resolution all over the reports and websites:
wtc7south.jpg


another glimps of the burning inferno:
wtc7groove2.jpg

wtc7groove1.jpg


the mapped gash from different frames (no smoke from any window):
gashbw.png


a glipse at the inferno at the lower floors:
figb.jpg


horizontal pattern of the wake effect (also known as shadow of the wind):
wakeeffect.gif


The horizontal pattern is the logic result of the direction of the wind at the edge of the upward suction.

I'm interested in the firefighter reports about other fires that were not reported in the NIST report and therefore in any early fire that didn't died down without spreading.
 
Last edited:
Eyewitness statements, and also their subsequent chinese-whisper reinterpretations and rewordings...are not reliable.

Here's something you'd understand:

The FDNY was there, you weren't!

You were probably at home watching TV or working on 9/11. For you to come here with all of your rhetoric means nothing.
 
Here's something you'd understand:

The FDNY was there, you weren't!
And your quoted testimony neatly shows that those there were very prone to the very heat-of-battle misinterpretation that I've highlighted, therefore justifying my position on the value of post-event video analysis.

So thanks Chewy ;)

Forgot to mention...whilst the eyewitness states "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it." ... the gash is not in the middle of the building, doesn't make up a third of the building, and I wouldn't describe the very linear gash as a hole myself, but hey ho. Reliable witness statements are really not expected in such intense situations.
 
Last edited:
And your quoted testimony neatly shows that those there were very prone to the very heat-of-battle misinterpretation that I've highlighted, therefore justifying my position on the value of post-event video analysis.

So thanks Chewy ;)

Forgot to mention...whilst the eyewitness states "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it." ... the gash is not in the middle of the building, doesn't make up a third of the building, and I wouldn't describe the very linear gash as a hole myself, but hey ho. Reliable witness statements are really not expected in such intense situations.

You should watch out claiming any eye witness testimony that is contrary to your position is simply a matter of heat-of-battle misinterpretation, because the next time you bring up any report of explosions as evidence of explosives we might simply laugh at you
 
And your quoted testimony neatly shows that those there were very prone to the very heat-of-battle misinterpretation that I've highlighted, therefore justifying my position on the value of post-event video analysis.

So thanks Chewy ;)

Forgot to mention...whilst the eyewitness states "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it." ... the gash is not in the middle of the building, doesn't make up a third of the building, and I wouldn't describe the very linear gash as a hole myself, but hey ho. Reliable witness statements are really not expected in such intense situations.

The video evidence coupled with the Firefighters' statements hold better water than your claims.

A huge hole, so what? When the Titanic struck an iceberg @ 11:40 PM on April 14, 1912 the carpenter who was ordered by Capt. Smith to sound the ship. Later Thomas Andrews told Capt. Smith that a 300 foot gash was caused by the iceberg.

In 1998, a team went down to the Titanic to see if they could peer through the mud, they did & only found out that the damage from the iceberg was minimal, about the size of a fridge.

I'm not saying that the 20 foot hole was minimal, but it was enough to cause serious damage to the building & compromised it's structural intergrity.

If only you Truthers would learn to read history, take notes, study & look for the evidence instead of assuming everything. :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom