WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[twinstead]

It has nothing to do with the insurance companies. That just came up with the question if a decision like pulling back the rescue workers should base on the expertise of some unknown Jim.

Something's not right, right. "Stage 1" is missing.

Well, how about I not base my opinion on the expertise of some unknown guy called achimspoc on an obscure internet forum, okay?

 

[alienentity]

You implied the fires in WTC6, an 8-story building, were causing a wake effect of smoke the reached the 47-story height of WTC7.

Couldn't possibly be caused by the fires throughout WTC7, right? Even though, as you obviously stated, fires were readily visible through the windows on floors 11, 12, 13, etc...

Anyway...again...are you going to get to your point anytime soon?

Not to mention that the NIST diagram he linked to shows that windows were broken all along those floors......

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Of course, smoke is pouring out of the debris that hit the building. Of course, smoke is pouring out of windows. The question is , which windows and when.

Why does it matter to you which windows? WTC7 was smoking!

What's your point anyways?

 

[tsig]

If I had two transits, at a scene like WTC7, I'd use each of them in the way I just described, to monitor two different parts of the building.

Maybe if I had eight, I'd have some of them set up in pairs, for partial triangulation on the one or two most critical points -- if I also had a lot of extra personnel with a lot of extra time on their hands.

The FDNY had nothing much else to do that afternoon, I suppose?

Respectfully,
Myriad

If they had eight transits then that would look suspicious to the twoofers. It's always a heads I win, tails you lose with them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For the 3rd time, smoke cannot emerge from unbroken windows but it should emerge from opened windows.

For the 9,001st time, the smoke is coming from the building. Whether you want it to be 3 floors or 15, it's coming from the building. The video shows this clearly that the bulk of the smoke can ONLY have come from inside the building. WTC 5 & 6 were both downwind from WTC 7, so any claim suggesting that they were the main source of the smoke is pretty much null and void.

 

[carlitos]

If they had eight transits then that would look suspicious to the twoofers. It's always a heads I win, tails you lose with them.

Exactly right. Something would just seem wrong about the fire department trying to prove that the building was destined to fall. Why so many transits? Why the focus on building 7? What were they covering up?

The whole idea that, in 2001, there would be a plausible reason to demolish a building to cover something up is risible, anyway. Computer files were distributed a long time before then.

 

[beachnut]

NIST got it right, 911 truth has failed for >9 years. 911 truth is on track to repeat the same lies and failed analysis for 9 more years, to infinity, and beyond. The OP added to the failed claims, a failed attack on NIST.

Fire? 911 truth has to say the fires were not a factor to keep their paranoid delusions alive. When we see free-fall, we know the paranoid delusion of demolition, the big inside job is alive in the terrorists apologizing 911 truth movement of fantasy.

All I knew was that I had to somehow get to my wife in Brooklyn. So we started walking up Broadway when a cop told us it was closed and we had to go east. So we went over to Nassau St. When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

One of thousands, who saw WTC burning, a towering inferno, in the bright sun. 911 truth should try science next time they make up lies of demolition and attack NIST due to ignorance.

What is a building suppose to do on fire, when the fire is not fought? Even when fires are fought, buildings are lost, totaled by fire. 911 truth, the only people on earth with the Titanic complex on steel, and zero comprehension of fire, physics, weather and other essential tools used in critical thinking tasks.


"It was on fire like the towering inferno." Oops WTC 7 was on fire; means 911 truth is telling lies again, and talking technobabble.

" I mean flames were everywhere." Oops WTC 7 was on fire.

" I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke." Fire and smoke. Bad news for 911 truth, and free-fall NIST attacks.

 

[Justin39640]

<snip>
So take the SW corner of WTC7 and the "WTC6" letters in your graphic and you see that a wake effect of the Verizon is pretty unlikely.
<snip>

Big post, loads of graphics and possibly some editing effort on your part. Sum total answer to my question? "a wake effect of the Verizon is pretty unlikely" with not a word of explanation, i.e. bare assertion.

Let me try again, phrased differently - why should WTC7 produce a wake effect at the level of WTC6's smoke but not The Verizon?

Another great question just totally ignored. IIRC the Verizon building had a significant window failure rate that day too.

 

[triforcharity]

Which photo are you referring to?

This one.

See the lines that are going horizontal? THey clearly indicate that there are different origins for the smoke.

 

[carlitos]

I see satan in the smoke in that last one.

 

[triforcharity]

It has nothing to do with the insurance companies. That just came up with the question if a decision like pulling back the rescue workers should base on the expertise of some unknown Jim.

Something's not right, right. "Stage 1" is missing.

No, it's not. You're still not understanding this.

It doesn't matter WHAT The guys name is. It matters WHAT his qualifications are.

An engineer is all we know. Most likely from the NYC DoB.

If the engineer had said the building was safe, the chief at the scene could have overruled that judgement, and evacuated anyway.

It doesn't matter WHO he was, it matters WHAT he was.

Do you understand that?

 

[tsig]

I see satan in the smoke in that last one.

It's clearly a centipede termite crawling up the side of the building to deposit its eggs.

You can see one leg hooked in the window and the head is clearly visible.

 

[achimspok]

Why did people need to believe that the building was going collapse in order to evacuate? Is the obvious terrorist attack on the 2 skyscraper next you not enough reason to GTFO?

Sure. When did the OEM order to evacuate the Marriott hotel?

Where does it say "Because of the threat that WTC 2 might collapse, WTC 7 was evacauted"...?

We have ONE source who said something about a 3rd plane.
When did the OEM order to evacuate the Empire State Building?

And what exactly is your main point here? Not WTC7 smoke = no big fires in WTC7 = not a structural failure = CD?

WTC7 smoke suggests different fire developement then simulated and may be / probably different failure

 

[achimspok]

So you'd think the insurance companies would be all over that, right? Something's just not right, huh?

No, I think the insurance companies didn't ask much questions after 9/11.

 

[achimspok]

You implied the fires in WTC6, an 8-story building, were causing a wake effect of smoke the reached the 47-story height of WTC7.

No. The wind caused the wake effect and the wind was much "higher" than a 47-story building.

Couldn't possibly be caused by the fires throughout WTC7, right? Even though, as you obviously stated, fires were readily visible through the windows on floors 11, 12, 13, etc...

Partially, since the sources of smoke can be identified. There is neither smoke nor fire from the SE of any SEC floor until 1pm. Any idea what the fire did between 10:28am and 1pm? Any idea how it could be big enough to "simulate" a 1000°C upper layer temperature and heat up a quater football field without any sign?

 

[achimspok]

Well, how about I not base my opinion on the expertise of some unknown guy called achimspoc on an obscure internet forum, okay?

You don't need to. I just try to find out if there are any substantial critique - something that I forgot to consider - something that I didn't know - whatever. You have to base your opinion on good taste, political correctness, names, media acceptance, convenience, ... your own eyes.

 

[achimspok]

Not to mention that the NIST diagram he linked to shows that windows were broken all along those floors......

Is it too much expected of you to use your brain first? :

According to your interpretation of the yellow color in the NIST damage estimate mapping no single window of the entire south face survived the collapse of WTC1.

1) Compare the window damage to the closer buildings like Marriott or WFC. How probable is a "zero window" damage? The probability equals zero.

2) What is the difference between the outermost window of the 40th floor compared to the outermost window of the 39th floor for example?

3) Once you're done you will start to wonder why the thick smoke came from the obviously undamaged windows while just some haze came from the opened windows.

What is it?
a) heavy burning glass
b) photoshopped by a truther
c) a disturbed or disrupted flow

No need to be scared! Thinking is normal human behaviour.

 

[achimspok]

Why does it matter to you which windows? WTC7 was smoking!

And the sun was shining on 9/12.

 

[achimspok]

Exactly right. Something would just seem wrong about the fire department trying to prove that the building was destined to fall. Why so many transits? Why the focus on building 7? What were they covering up?

The whole idea that, in 2001, there would be a plausible reason to demolish a building to cover something up is risible, anyway. Computer files were distributed a long time before then.

I'm always surprised how so called debunkers develop ridiculous ideas, stating that this would be the proper idea of a truther, laugh about their own "truther" idea... and finally try to get some logic out of it.

Computer files were distributed a long time before then? Before what? Which computer files? Who distribute it?

 

[achimspok]

No, it's not. You're still not understanding this.

It doesn't matter WHAT The guys name is. It matters WHAT his qualifications are. An engineer is all we know. Most likely from the NYC DoB. If the engineer had said the building was safe, the chief at the scene could have overruled that judgement, and evacuated anyway. It doesn't matter WHO he was, it matters WHAT he was. Do you understand that?

...and the building collapsed anyway, right?