dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Judging by his form up to now,no.
Judging by his form up to now,no.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
To add...I'm not suggesting full storeys, but portions near the SW corner.
picky? ...it shows the wind from north to south and should give a hint for the whirl. (not that easy to paint with a mouse)
You have buildings in the image. Just compare the smoke to the position of the building. It's easy. Just try.
Irving Trust buildings? ...the Verizon building as barricade for the wind at lower floors, right. The tower of the Verizon probably had no effect.
In the end the WTC7 was a huge sail much wider and higher than the Verizon. In an almost steady wind you wll get an overall flow pattern for these buildings. You can see the result.
FEMA or NIST. One of the reports. I guess it was FEMA.
I watched it. I'm a proud owner of the entire DVD. The Spak video was taken before noon. The early fires are still present. A lot of smoke emerged from the debris that pile up at the SW corner. (That's what alienentity don't get. Time matters.)
If you followed the tread then you know that we discussed 2 issues referred to the fire:
1) the alleged inferno - "20 floors on fire" and claims like that
2) the transition between eary fires went dead and later fires spread through entire floors
Btw, I don't say that there was "no" fire. I agree with Pitts of NIST as linked above. I see the early fires and I see the later fires and I cannot see the sources for the later fires especially in the Spak video.
And I said that the vast majority of the smoke came from other buildings especially after the early fires went dead. (after 12 o'clock)
At 2pm huge fires developed in the east at 11,12,13. Watch the Spak video! There is neither smoke nor fire in the south of these floors.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
No, you've attempted to move the goalposts. The original reply you gave did not include those qualifiers:
And when I linked to this picture, you still denied that it was coming from WTC 7!! But this picture was taken earlier. I've linked to it several times and you've denied it several times, yet now you appear to be backing off your initial denials.
That's called 'moving the goalposts', dude.
The wind wasn't N-S. And try the line drawing tool in Paint. Even I can manage that:
Notice the difference? Your wind in yellow, the real wind in blue, approx, which gives us 45° corner effect for any vortex according to your diagrams above. You weren't being a little misleading when you drew in that wind direction, surely?
But WTC5 was only 10 storeys tall. Its smoke is blown away from WTC7 while it is rising in this 'non-vortex' area.
Well, we really need to know where the photo was taken from, and at what time. But even so just drawing a line away to the right with so little to go by and saying the smoke is travelling West (or anywhere else) is simplistic to say the least.
Last edited:
You are moving the goalpost, dude. You cite my post 524? Ok, go back to 448 and read. Answer any question if you can. You can't. You just posted a cropped image of some smoke. It's impossible to see any origin of the smoke but the wake effect you stubbornly denying. And of course you see a little smoke coming from the early fires mentioned in post 448.
You need to know the meaning of wake effect?
Here it is:
Consequently you have to claim that WTC7 burnt on all floors prior to WTC1 collapse.
You want me th watch the Steven Spak video? I did. Did you?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Nope. That would imply I've changed my story. But I haven't - you have, that's all.
What you see depends on the photo - some are more revealing than others.
The one you've showed is not detailed enough to determine where the smoke is coming from - I wouldn't use it to prove or disprove your claim.
But the one I've referred to is very clear. It shows your claim to be false. That's why you're having a hissy-fit and moving the goalposts.
Plus the videos clearly disprove your points, and your frustrated efforts to revise the truth to suit your strange agenda (God only knows what your point is).
Oh well, I feel for you. You're still arguing the weak argument. Life is tough for you...
Right and wrong. The wind was indeed N-S. Read the la Guardia weather report or...
...the WTC complex is turned about 29°. So you are right, the wind had an angle of about 30° referred to the buildings. Looks like my arrow is closer but it wouldn't change anything.
Fallacy. Look at the images I linked in the last post.
FEMA report ch4 p.4-13 "WTC5 on fire"
The image shows the NE corner. In the sky you see the final N-S smoke.
Hence, "simple" is the better word. I don't need to break my neck if something is that obvious.
Last edited:
LOL, 911 truth show a satellite photo to show ground winds? No wonder 911 truth has the CD and other moronic delusion on 911. Skew-T, anyone, looks like weather is not in 911 truth tool box, like engineering, physics and all sciences.
How does the inability, of 911 truth, to understand weather impact the free-fall failed thread?
Last edited:
You
1) moved away from the topic because you had nothing to say about it.
2) you denied the discrepancy in the appearance of the fire and moved on
3) you play "don't understand what you mean" until the statement is simplistic enough for you to
4) state that the statement is too simple
So fine, you want to play rethorical nonsense making? Go back and read the threat! Your image shows exactly what I described and even the fires the NIST desribed. These fires died down. No evidence for later fires until about 2 o'clock. Massive smoke from WTC5 billowing up the WTC7 south facade. That's all and it is ******* obvious in the images I posted. You stay with your keyhole view. Fine. Not my problem.
Last edited:
It's obvious that you have NO CLUE what I am taking about and why I show that image. Do yourself a favor. Think before typing!
Nice work. Your overlay has 8th Av. coming down the middle of the Hudson.
You've rotated the photo by about 15° afaics.
here you go, with recognisable features lined up
Last edited:
I doubt 911 truth is looking for fires, they are looking for thermite and explosives; What are things with less heat energy and less energy than burning office contents? For 800...
I can't believe there is a 911 truth; how can people fail to comprehend 911? It took Passengers on Flight 93 minutes to figure out and take action! 911 truth can't publish their claptrap without it being found to be moronic nonsense and idiotic delusions.
The proof WTC7 was not on fire... that is not part of WTC7 falling due to fire... sure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx8oOVm7zvg fire plus people worried the building will fall... darn, no CD here; another year of failure for 911 truth, at free-fall rates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcFQUpL_yA out of control fire, not fought, is this the no fire evidence needed for CD to be backed in for 911 truth fantasies to be true. oops fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvUiMwCXf08 oops, slower than free-fall. Darn, how does free-fall work in the CD world of 911 fantasies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=related fire, and after talking to people walking past WTC 7 on 911, I found the fires to be reported, were BIG, out of control, and Building 7 was leaning, crooked. oops, are the CD charges slow working, bending the building and that is why the Big Boom was not heard. Can't be thermite, thermite leaves behind a nasty trail of melted iron, not found anywhere in the WTC complex.
Some of those videos were posted by 911 truth morons; they are extra nuts as thermite sparks float up-wards in their failed CD minds of paranoid conspiracy theory mush.
No fire in WTC 7, sure we all believe you and hope you can back in CD with your incremental step with the free-fall anti-NIST obsession, the red flag for 911 truth woo. What is the next step?
Uh, I see, OK. What does it change referred to the somke around WTC7 and the wake effect?
Last edited:
You are off topic as always with your Rumpelstiltskin attitude.
Btw, first video shows the fire at 12 almost moved completely to the west more than one hour´prior to the collapse. I'm sure there is still a burning hell going on next to column 79.
And btw none is talking about thermite or CD. Start a thead! Do not interrupt any discussion about any topic with your paranoia by annoying everyone for the things going on in your paranoid view.
Last edited:
You have rotated he satellite image away from proper orientation. New York doesn't look like that viewed S-N.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Here is the other problem.
From the historical data, (From CENTRAL PARK, which is about HALF the distance away tha LaGuardia, we see that the wind never varied much from North till afternoon.
(linkey)
http://www.wunderground.com/history...Manhattan&req_state=NY&req_statename=New+York
And here is the table I used.
Time (EDT):Wind Dir: Wind Speed:
8:51 AM WNW 9.2 mph
9:51 AM WNW 5.8 mph
10:51 AM WNW 6.9 mph
11:51 AM North 5.8 mph
12:51 PM North - Unknown
1:51 PM NW 5.8 mph
2:51 PM NE 9.2 mph
3:51 PM NNE 6.9 mph
4:51 PM Variable 3.5 mph
5:51 PM North 5.8 mph
Avg. Speed is 5.89 for the hours between first attack, and collapse of 7WTC.
From the historical data, (From CENTRAL PARK, which is about HALF the distance away tha LaGuardia, we see that the wind never varied much from North till afternoon.
(linkey)
http://www.wunderground.com/history...Manhattan&req_state=NY&req_statename=New+York
And here is the table I used.
8:51 AM WNW 9.2 mph
9:51 AM WNW 5.8 mph
10:51 AM WNW 6.9 mph
11:51 AM North 5.8 mph
12:51 PM North - Unknown
1:51 PM NW 5.8 mph
2:51 PM NE 9.2 mph
3:51 PM NNE 6.9 mph
4:51 PM Variable 3.5 mph
5:51 PM North 5.8 mph
Avg. Speed is 5.89 for the hours between first attack, and collapse of 7WTC.
Free-fall, that is not the topic, are winds the topic, or CD?
The fact is my fire is hottest after the flames go out. Why is fire science not in the 911 truth tool box? Physics? Engineering? Weather? Flying? Critical thinking?
Fire, is that on topic? You sure mention the no fire stuff, but it seems you don't know jack about fire.
Free-fall, is that on topic? WTC 7 falling took over 15 seconds; on what universe is that as fast, or as fast as free-fall. Kind of like saying someones 100 yard dash at 21 seconds is as fast as the world record time. It might make sense to 911 truth, but it is a delusion, like CD.
Please explain why the topic is related to 911 conspracy theories of CD, thermite and RDX? Tie this up in the big picture topic of 911 conspracy theoris. Like your theory of CD you are doning a slow step by step march to prove your CD theory. Can you do that?
The winds, on the ground, were about 300 true to 330 true. That is not north. Math, weather, and navigation were never in the 911 truth tool box; it remains true today after > 9 years of failure to prove CD with the free-fall ploy. The photo you posted showed winds of 300 true for ground level, then as we go up the winds tend to twist another 90 degrees or so; the smoke would seek a level, and the satellite photos would show winds for the plume at that altitude, spreading out where the different wind directions have smoke; wind direction not the same as on the ground. WTC 7 burned and the fires caused the collapse. The winds have what to do with the OP junk? Why does the OP appear to be a weak attack on NIST, the free-fall failure. Sounds more like a 911 truth fact, the failure part.
I forgot, I asked all those questions; 911 truth answer no questions, they make up delusions to support their delusions. Good luck proving CD, it will keep you busy a long time.
What do the winds have to do with the free-fall failure?
What does the OP have to do with CD and the free-fall failure?
In your theory of CD, was it thermite, or explosives?
I can't find any reference in that report to which part of the building we're looking at in the photo.