WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

Senenmut said:
good quotes. they knew at 1230 it was going to collapse from that "particular engineer." he called wtc 1,2 and 7. so it would be in the firemens best interest to back up!!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can't read correctly:

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro describes his reasons for creating the collapse zone:

"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain."
Click to expand...

He said : "Fire officers" Does the name "Incident Safety Officer" ring any bells?
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
Btw, the correct angle doesn't matter at all since the wind came from north of the building.
Click to expand...

Um .... right .... the wind came from the northern half of the sky ... so the angle doesn't matter ??

Then what of your claims about 'wake effect' which do depend on wind direction ?

271° is "from north of the building" and 89° is "from north of the building" . Would your 'wake effect' on the smoke from wtc5+6 apply equally in both those cases, and all cases in between? I think not. Construct a graphic to show this 'wake effect' picking up WTC5 smoke onto the W side of the WTC7 face with a 271° wind eh?

A 271° wind is hitting the S side :eek:
An 81° wind is leaving the 'wake effect' on the wrong side of the building :eek:
The wind direction is vital to your miserable little theories.

You cannot just 'say stuff' and have it be correct because you want it so, achimspok. Science doesn't like that.

Meanwhile you continue to lie about the direction of the plume (blue line) in your satellite photo and (new lie) that late afternoon shot of GZ smoke clearly passing behind buildings to the SE of WTC7.

You have no evidence, achimspok. You rely on pre-existing belief and the torturing of facts and science to beat the real world into agreeing with your beliefs. You make up 'stuff' hoping that one small thing might be right, and that that will make everything better.
 
Here you can see smoke flowing to the SE from both WTC 7 and WTC 6.

I suppose by achimspok's metrics, (yes, they are yours!!) the smoke flowing from 6 is not coming from 6 but is coming from the WTC 1 rubble pile, and being 'wake effected', ie magically and smokriloquistically made to look otherwise.

From this 'evidence' and 'logic' *cough... we must conclude that the smoke was from neither 7 or 6, and that neither building had much fire. The flames seen in both buildings are just annoying distractions to be ignored. :D

800px-LOC_unattributed_Ground_Zero_photos%2C_September_11%2C_2001_-_item_196.jpg
 
Clearly smoke is coming out of both the building in the foreground, and the building in the background. Or, according to achimspok, neither building.... lol. The 9/11 no-smoker theory.

0061r.jpg

0139r.jpg

0140r.jpg

0148r.jpg
 
Senenmut said:
and what time was that?
Click to expand...

Very picky aren't you? You know the time! :rolleyes:

The time right now is dinner time!

BTW: Answering a question with a question means you still don't know anything.

Now answer the questions':

Does this "engineer" have a name or is he a figment of your imagination?

Nigro said : "Fire officers" Does the name "Incident Safety Officer" ring any bells?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here's another illustration of the smoktriloquism effect, truther-style: The first building has smoke coming out of it, the second does not. Pics taken at same time, btw....:jaw-dropp

0148v-1.jpg


0140v-1.jpg
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Very picky aren't you? You know the time! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
no, i dont know what time they said that. i looked into it and it was around 430pm. 4 hrs after the "engineer" said it was going to collapse.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
BTW: Answering a question with a question means you still don't know anything.
Click to expand...
or maybe you dont know anything but just pretending to know something!! haha...
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Now answer the questions':
Click to expand...

i asked you because you pretend to know it all. this is what we have to work with:

Hayden: "Well we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and, if so, how soon. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in its current state you have about five hours."

and another:

"I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a
representative from the Department of Buildings, but
I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several
of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was
brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was
quite significant and they were very confident that the
building's stability was compromised and they felt that
the north tower was in danger of a near imminent
collapse."

so, do you see a name in there somewhere? i dont. thats why i asked the fireman know it all concerning 911 (thats you). the last paragraph is interesting b/c he says that several "of us" meaning fireman folk and then this "engineer type person" meaning just one of him (engineer type).
 
Senenmut said:
Hayden: "Well we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and, if so, how soon. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in its current state you have about five hours."

look it up.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA
From the link that was messed up.

As far as the CIA infiltration, we can waste another 10 years speculating on the idea. Problem is that's all that you've materialized so far. You're attempting to spur doubt without making any tenable connections to substantiate it.

One thing to point out is I see nothing wrong with the firefighter testimony, even if in the end the collapse hadn't taken place, because again, firefighters understand that the risk is present every single time they enter a building. They don't make assumptions like "first in history" to assess their safety, if they did it would endanger their own lives and those of their colleagues. What you're doing is using their understanding of risks to suggest that a third party is involved, which is very shaky ground
 
achimspok said:
You are right. Try this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Derailing-Democracy-America-Media-Dont/dp/1567511848
Click to expand...

No thanks. I won't be buying a book to prove that Senenmut's signature is accurate. I have my limits. He's welcome to do so himself, or he can continue to lie and post his signature for all to see that he lies.

If I had to guess, the author of that book, if he uses the quote, probably erroneously sources it to the Berstein RS article like you did. It's an urban myth at this point.
 
GlennB said:
Um .... right .... the wind came from the northern half of the sky ... so the angle doesn't matter ??

Then what of your claims about 'wake effect' which do depend on wind direction ?

271° is "from north of the building" and 89° is "from north of the building" . Would your 'wake effect' on the smoke from wtc5+6 apply equally in both those cases, and all cases in between? I think not. Construct a graphic to show this 'wake effect' picking up WTC5 smoke onto the W side of the WTC7 face with a 271° wind eh?

A 271° wind is hitting the S side :eek:
An 81° wind is leaving the 'wake effect' on the wrong side of the building :eek:
The wind direction is vital to your miserable little theories.

You cannot just 'say stuff' and have it be correct because you want it so, achimspok. Science doesn't like that.

Meanwhile you continue to lie about the direction of the plume (blue line) in your satellite photo and (new lie) that late afternoon shot of GZ smoke clearly passing behind buildings to the SE of WTC7.

You have no evidence, achimspok. You rely on pre-existing belief and the torturing of facts and science to beat the real world into agreeing with your beliefs. You make up 'stuff' hoping that one small thing might be right, and that that will make everything better.
Click to expand...

You may play dumb to construct any argument out of nothing.
Your approx. 300-310° arrow is wrong. No photograph confirms any angle close to that. Even Central Park measured wind directions of about 0° (north) for the entire afternoon (12am - 7pm).
At any elevation and time the smoke near GZ shows an angle of about 355° at 9am and even in the evening.
911winddirection.png
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
...
Click to expand...
What is the wind direction in your demolition theory? You posted a photo showing 300 degrees with a shot from low orbit. Does this match what you think you want? You have a line for wind at some altitude, and cheat the direction you want it to be. Are you working in true or mag?
Do you agree using free-fall is the sign of delusions about 911? Where did you get your degree in Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology? Where did you get your geometry skills? Good luck with the demolition inside job paranoid conspiracy theories thing! Some advice, stop using references to free-fall in your presentations in the future.

How does wind direction relate to the free-fall ploy?
 
alienentity said:
Here you can see smoke flowing to the SE from both WTC 7 and WTC 6.

I suppose by achimspok's metrics, (yes, they are yours!!) the smoke flowing from 6 is not coming from 6 but is coming from the WTC 1 rubble pile, and being 'wake effected', ie magically and smokriloquistically made to look otherwise.

From this 'evidence' and 'logic' *cough... we must conclude that the smoke was from neither 7 or 6, and that neither building had much fire. The flames seen in both buildings are just annoying distractions to be ignored. :D

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/LOC_unattributed_Ground_Zero_photos%2C_September_11%2C_2001_-_item_196.jpg/800px-LOC_unattributed_Ground_Zero_photos%2C_September_11%2C_2001_-_item_196.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

"We must conclude..." LOL We the idiots? Who is we?
You must conclude nothing. Even your helpless effort to ridicule the effect of the wind as your "no smoke" theory won't help it.

What's the time in your picture? Is it before noon? Is it afternoon? Do you see smoke emanating from unbroken windows again? No smoke from the broken ones?
That haze in the air is indeed dust and smoke from the WTC1 collapse.
Can you take any of your linked images and show me where the thick smoke from WTC6 is billowing up in the air? Oops, it's obviously somewhere behind the building because the smoke in the foreground appears to billowing up from a huge pile of debris (formerly known as WTC1).

Here you can see where the thick column of smoke from WTC6 is billowing up. You cannot see it in your linked images because it's hidden behind WTC6 in your well selected view. Try this one!
wtc6_fires.jpg


Since you are obviously not able to see that the smoke billows towards WTC7 I conclude that you will start a thread for your "smoke billowing downwards" theory.:p
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
...
wtc6_fires.jpg

... " theory.:p
Click to expand...
Is that someone fighting the fire in WTC 6, keeping it from collapse like WTC 7? 911 truth, debunking 911 truth for 9 years.

Remember, don't use free-fall anymore, it is the sign of woo. Are you saying WTC 7 was not on fire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom