Thanks.
Common, just look at it and figure it out. It's not that hard.
Your post is a nice example that you are not able to learn. You still confuse horizontal and vertical. And that's exactly what this topic is about.
Posting this much evidence for your theories is about par for 911 truth.
Like your NIST attack... Does this mean, the _ | stuff I failed to learn were not needed to pass aerobatic flight training... engineering classes, or what? Oh, it was a weak attack, like the NIST stuff. Now I get it. Thank you very much, cool to see you have time to post lies about me when you can't post proof for your CD theory, or answer if you think your theory is with thermite or explosives. What is the mechanism of your CD theory? Who did it? I know fire did it in the reality based world, but what is did it in the world of 911 truth.
Why does 911 truth never answer questions, or support their delusions with facts and evidence. I figured out 911 on 911, 911 truth has failed to do that for >9 years. At least 911 truth is efficient, failing to make a point and telling lies in the same post. Is that a requirement for membership?
Your CD claims are not related to your attack on NIST, the free fall failure, or is that a autobiographical thing? Help me out and explain how your CD theory dovetails to this free fall nonsense you disguised as some sort of study, with no goals, or conclusions other than attacks on NIST.
How does free fall impact your CD theory?
The wind direction has nothing to do with the fires in WTC 7, why are you off topic? Maybe due to the fact you can't tie CD to your free fall scam.
The truth is this OP is one of your steps to prove your CD theory. I know this, you know this, why not share your methods with the rest of the world; you have on youtube? You might get some help if you are more open with your step by step method.
Last edited:
And that's the problem I repeatedly told you. There is no step by step method. There is no CD theory. There is an observed fact. The obdervation is pretty simple if you just open your eyes.
You are the one who made the connection "free fall" = "CD". Your problem. The free fall is measureable. The kind of deformation of the building is visible. You just need to put two perspectives together.
But exactly that is what you obviously failed to learn in your aerobatic flight training... engineering classes.
NIST printed "camera 3" next to the sychronized frames of the Dan Rather clip. Just look at it and you will be enlightened.
Now what? Debunkers like you will never learn the truth about anything because they refuse to see the obvious, the undeniable, the simple naked measureable fact. Why? Because they fear some step by step plan leading to somewhere. BOOO!
Btw, Beachnut, do you see the wake effekt of the wind at WTC7? ...and even WTC1 at full height? ...or is it fire?
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I was looking for more video showing WTC 7 smoke. This one, from which Femr2 earlier posted a frame, clearly shows over several seconds fresh smoke emanating from windows near the SW face, in the afternoon.
There's actually a fair amount of smoke, it's possible that some of it is mixed with smoke from the rest of the WTC, but it is not as achimspok claims.
The next video shows heavy smoke surrounded all of WTC 7, on the N face and also to the East, just as it collapses. it's interesting that the guy on the video comments something to the effect of 'see! I told you that sucker was coming down!'. I guess he must be working for the NWO as well.....
There's actually a fair amount of smoke, it's possible that some of it is mixed with smoke from the rest of the WTC, but it is not as achimspok claims.
The next video shows heavy smoke surrounded all of WTC 7, on the N face and also to the East, just as it collapses. it's interesting that the guy on the video comments something to the effect of 'see! I told you that sucker was coming down!'. I guess he must be working for the NWO as well.....
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
True, it is disorganized and chaotic - and very contradictory (footprint, freefall speed etc)
True. Nothing that could be proposed would make any sense, or would fit with the evidence. Hence, no theory has emerged.
It is a delusion reinforced by a strong confirmation bias: wanting to see something which isn't there....
But by the same token, if the delusion requires NOT seeing something, then it is denied - hence WTC 7 cannot be emanating smoke into the afternoon, because this threatens the incoherent idea that the building couldn't have failed due to fires.
Too bad there were huge fires on the West side seen in videos in the afternoon which also put the lie to this truther canard. It's really that bad for truthers - they must deny most of the clear evidence in order to believe their fantasy.
Here's yet another great video showing the huge amounts of smoke directly coming from WTC 7 shortly before it collapsed. Of course these fires didn't exist, right?
I'll dig up that Michael Hess video unless someone can link to it. It shows large fires on the SE side.
Yep, no fire in WTC 7. Is this what this truther is pushing on youtube, or was it the thermite sparks, what in reality are called ash, from fire. Looks like you and fire science are on the speaking terms as engineering and physics.
Does you continued off topic wind obsession mean you can't tie your step by step CD theory proof to free fall?
The irony of 911 truth, calling ash thermite sparks, and showing fires in WTC7, the same fires which destroyed WTC 7 without explosives or thermite. How much thermite was needed in your CD theory?
Too bad, you simply do not understand the problem here.
Even your linked videos show that you dont understand what I'm talking about.
I give up. Believe what you want.
Beachnut, same thing.
Hallo, sombody home? I explained it 3 times 4 times... Don't know anymore.
You link some image of a huge fire after 2pm. Is anyone here who ever denied it?
Show me the 20 floor on fire as "witnessed"!
Show me when that fire you linked started! At 10:28? Where was it for 3.5 hours? No smoke no fire at these floors in the S.Spak video.
Your Inferno is the only one delusion here.
...and link some image that fits in the discussion, insead of your moronic "I post something related to 9/11 anyhow"!
How is it Beachnut and Alienentity, do you both see the effect of the wake of the wind or not? Simple answer, yes or no?
Do you think the effect dissappeared for any reason during the day?
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
My dear fellow, nobody is denying that there is wind and wind effects. We are merely pointing to direct evidence of smoke coming straight out of many windows, so it doesn't matter to us much how much wind there was.
You seem to be the one chasing your tale
in an effort to create some alternative reality where there were not extensive fires in WTC 7 accompanied by smoke. You're wrong, and all this bafflegab about wind is, well...a lot of hot air and smoke, frankly. 
Oh, and please stop SHOUTING at us. Thanks
Last edited:
It is, I figured out 911 on 911, 911 truth has failed to do anything but make up lies about CD. I cheated, I listened to the Intel briefings, understood the news, knew UBL promised us death; and we failed to take him serious as he killed, or tried to kill Americans (the US ones) all over the earth.
At the second impact I suspected UBL - and gee, he took credit. He must be laughing hard at the failed 911 truth movement.
How is it, you can't tie your CD theories to the free fall attack on NIST as you think wind makes the fires in WTC 7 not there?
But gee, as you said I don't have a clue what horizontal is or vertical; which is like your CD theory. failed
How does the free fall OP failure stuff fit with your CD theory? Better give up the smoke off topic nonsense. That will not make the fires, which destroyed WTC 7, go away.
Better, but still wrong in the Manhattan area.
We all know wake effect can happen. You have done no more than mention wake effect while assuming it was the source of much WTC7 smoke. You have failed to demonstrate it even happening, let alone that it's of any significance.
Meanwhile FDNY testimony flatly contradicts your claims. You have absolutely nothing except belief and a weird determination to find one single factoid that supports it. Desperate stuff.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Achimspok's talking about the smoke coming from WTC7?
Ok, so what? He wasn't there so whatever he claims is debunked by the witnesses who were there.
All this talk about the smoke is just silly!
Ok, so what? He wasn't there so whatever he claims is debunked by the witnesses who were there.
All this talk about the smoke is just silly!
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.
We see the pure wake effect results in a horizontal smoke pattern.
We see a lot of undamaged windows west of the gash e.g. the outermost windows at 43, 42, 40, 39, 38, 36, 35, ...
...and we see no smoke from any window west of the gash between floor 17 and floor 49.
In other words, we see smoke from undamaged windows but no smoke from the damaged windows.
Nevertheless, Alienentity claims:
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?
This is because the airflow was North to South thru WTC 7, so if achimspok were correct, the exact opposite would be observed.
His claim is based on an image taken from the 911myth website and in combination with the claim that the witness testimony of one firefighter can't be wrong.
He ignores directly contradicting images like this one...
...and 9/11 Chewy Defense supported Alienentity's claim by citing "911myth" too.
He cited the testimony of firefighter Boyle, who allegedly saw fire on 20 floors.
Boyle believed that he "probably" was right next to the building but cannot answer the question about the appearance of the fire (one window or many windows).
So Alienentity moves on and claims that the evidence for extensive fires in the south is a high resolution image that
1) confirms the wake effect and
2) shows smoke from two windows near the SW corner
3) He combines his weak argument with a little side step to "oxygen-starved fires™" while knowing that "open air fires" always are oxygen-starved fires. (Air = 21% oxygen and close to a fire it might be less.)
The floors Alienentity now wants us to notice are 22 and 18 while NIST wrote that early fires at 22 and 19 went dead early without spreading far.
A closer look at the linked Aman Zafar image taken approximately at noon shows
1) that the oxygen-starved fire at 19 indeed left a lot of black soot above the window
2) the fire at 19 already went dead without spreading far (2 windows isn't that far)
3) smoke covered the outermost windows at 18 and 17 as well as lower windows a little more to the left suggesting that smoke from somewhere in the north billowed up between Verizon and WTC7
4) the smoke at 17 and 18 is not thick enough to miss that there is neigther a visible fire nor any soot around the windows allegedly on fire
Any image taken later that day shows the absurdity of Alienentity's argument...
...and it shows that even the earlier cited firefighter Hayden could NOT have seen a bulge in the SW corner at about floor 13 because the corner wasn't there anymore.
Since Hayden describes a bulge but not the damage I conclude that Haydens view was obscured by smoke.
Indeed, the cited witnesses remind a little bit to the "North of Citgo" witness reports who claim the Pentagon plane was north of Citgo gas station while the evidence show them wrong. Obviously that recollection problem has to be neglected as long it supports the so called "official story".
After every single argument of Alienentity turned out to be nonsense he started to accuse me that I moved the goalposts.
Why? Because I repeated my original claim that the vast majority of the smoke in the south of WTC7 came from WTC5 and WTC6.
Nevertheless, there is no problem to identify the WTC6 smoke billowing towards the WTC7 (and against the origin of the wind).
In the same way images from the FEMA report show the smoke from WTC5 billowing towards WTC7. Of course, that tremendous amount of smoke do not simply dissappear in midair.
While accusing me of moving the goalposts he is still denying the undeniable:
the wake effect of the building.
Alienentity still is riding the dead horse of 15+ floors on fire he claims to "see" in the 911myth or in the Zafar image.
Both images show him wrong.
...but finally even Alienentity admidts that "there is wind and wind effects" but ...
My dear fellow, nobody is denying that there is wind and wind effects. We are merely pointing to direct evidence of smoke coming straight out of many windows, so it doesn't matter to us much how much wind there was.
You seem to be the one chasing your tale
Oh, and please stop SHOUTING at us. Thanks
So the "alternative reality" Alienentity is talking about is simply THE REALITY as shown in videos and photographs (other than the misleading 911myth collection). However, his "direct evidence of smoke coming straight out of many windows" do not stand against any closer inspection. It's simply a fraud.
I don't know who "we" is Alienentity is referring to but he probably meant his community of 911myth readers/citers.
Alienentity's conclusion "so it doesn't matter to us much how much wind there was" shows him not just ignorant but the little word "us" sounds like the call for perseverance.
Some kind of "Hey guys, don't believe what you see! WE have to withstand."
What's left?
The photographic evidence taken at about 01:05pm shows neither fire nor smoke nor soot in the south(east) of the SEC floors 11, 12, 13.
Notice: the west face of WTC6 is almost perfectly aligned with the position of the sun. The ladders of the firefighters are completely in the sun. The north west corner of that balcony shows a small shadow right below the remained railing.
The WTC complex was rotated about 29° towards east. Therefore that image was taken at 1:05pm (solar Azimuth 209°).
If the collapse and falling debris caused the fires at the SEC floors
AND these fires first became visible at the east face at approximately 2pm
THEN fire at these floors had to develop in the south (south east).
After 2.5 hours of fire development there is still no sign of fire at these floors.
At that time the NIST fire simulation at floor 12 already reached temperatures between 500°C - 1000°C in the entire south east corner.
This finally leads back to post 448 ...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6773432&postcount=448
... where I have shown the same discrepancies for the fire vs. simulation in the north of WTC7.
And again it shows the best example for the miraculous simulation of NIST.
They simulated a very different fire and got exactly
- the right time,
- the right column,
- the right temperature and
- the right unbraced column length
to "show" that the hypothesis from the Interim Report was correct.
Indeed, any small deviation referring to time, column, temperature or unbraced column length would have resulted in a completely different outcome and a completely different collapse if it would have resulted in a total collapse at all.
The probability for such a complex simulation to start with wrong presumtions and to arrive at the right result - especially if that "right result" is based on the wrong interpretation of the movement (OP) - is zero.
The NIST WTC7 report is based on the result of a FEA simulation.
That simulation appears to be manipulated in a way to fullfill to expectation of NIST as written in the Interim Report some years earlier.
The nice word is MIRACLE.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
I deleted out all the ranting because that's what it is.
Achimspok, noone really cares what you say anymore because I'm going to honestly tell you that rant you made is nothing. Not a single piece of evidence, just ranting from you.
Unless you have evidence to support your ranting, then you need to learn when to shut the hell up & listen.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
The fact that you're lying or completely incompetent (or both) doesn't help your arguments. That's pathetic.
We've had no planers, now we have 'no smokers'.
To demonstrate what horsemanure F2 is peddling, simply look at this video, which shows smoke pouring from not just the East face but also from the North.
These prevaricators would like to pretend that NONE of this smoke came from WTC 7. Really pathetic....
And a repost for the faint of thinking, complete with real flames coming from the windows! Wow, did those flames come from the other buildings as well, Mr. Liar?
Last edited:
That's what I'm looking for - the fires. I'm interested in the development of the fires you posted the last time as some evidence for what exactly? Thermite? No Thermite?
Which UBL are you talking about?
The one with the black beard?
The one who said Al Qaeda do not exist?
The one who denied any responsibility shortly after 911?
The one in that video who was translated in the wrong way as many linguistic experts from different coutries had pointed out?
You listened to the Intel briefings? Yes, that's what I suspected.
At the second impact you suspected UBL? Based on what?
The sophisticated USS Cole plot - an inflatable dinghy? - many simultaneous inflatable dinghies? - the failed Bojinka plot?
What came into your mind that made you certain UBL did it while the intelligence around the world was still certain that such a plot without the helping hands of some government would be impossible?
"UBL promised us death..." (a lot others did too) and he was successful with car bombs and inflatable dinghies.
"...and we failed to take him serious..." No, you ended able danger, you ended John O'Neill, you ignored the PDB, you never investigated in the different Attas who staged in Florida as Washington crop duster terrorist before Atta first entered the US ... you invited the paymaster of Atta for breakfast on 9/11 in the White House, month earlier you offered the Taliban a carpet of bombs, if they do not accept and support the Enron pipelines, and you did it.
Accidentally the Enron investigation paperwork burnt away at the floors 11,12,13 at WTC7.
Accidentally all WTC7 evidence where shipped away.
Accidentally WTC7 was completely evacuated prior to the collapses.
Accidentally no fire chief believed in any collapse at that time.
Accidentally the firefighter communication inside of WTC1 blew up without any reasonable cause.
Accidentally the firefighters who wanted to fight the fire in WTC7 were sent away - frustrated.
Accidentally the FBI searched 3 years for the right Alomari until they stated that they have found Alomaris passport in Attas delayed baggage on 9/11. Of course, you will not find any image of that passport on the Internet. Why?
It's a hoax. It's a farce. It's a great big lie and at least 60% of the population on earth know it. You are the minority besides politics and the influence of actual politics on our view of history and historical events.
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
Umm, why is it I have a hard time believing that picture was taken AFTER the north tower fell? Because I doubt someone would be standing in the South tower wreckage with a perfectly clear view of building 7 between the collapse of the 2.