You are so funny, Dave. I guess "glass-smoker" Alienentity might applaud you.
Using funny names is always better than reading boring books.
Last edited:
Using funny names is always better than reading boring books.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
It doesn't show, and isn't intended to show, smoke over the Brooklyn bridge. Just more evidence of a wind well W of your 355°. Clearly the wind was variable, as it almost inevitably is.
'somewhere west' ? If that 11:55 is l0cal time it translates to 10:45 without daylight saving, putting the sun somewhat in the East afaics and the satellite about 25° ahead of it. Damn near due south, but no matter.
From 822km up I would imagine there is precious little parallax error.
Last edited:
911myth said:
This way:
or this way:
A little bit too simple as always at the "dumb for 9/11 dummies" page.911myth said:
They have no explanation why and how the smoke disappears from all windows simultaneously. So they decided not to show it.
They indeed believe that the columns and damaged panels are fire? WTF
Last edited:
...but you see the roof. In other words, in your image you cannot see the columns. Google for "total reflection"!
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Careful. It is not a lie to post the NIST damage descriptions and refer to them correctly. As I did.
Unless you think facts are lies....maybe therein lies your problem.
A W Smith
Philosopher
thats not gonna work
Why the demolition of building seven was vewey vewey quiet
Why the demolition of building seven was vewey vewey quiet
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
Still havent answered my question...
What if there was no fire at 1pm? What is your ultimate point achimspok?
What if there was no fire at 1pm? What is your ultimate point achimspok?
No. In some windows you see something bright either in the upper half or in the lower half. It could be some kind of blinds or even falling down ceiling tiles or whatever.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I'd like to know that too. Why does the smoke have to do with a CD? Perhaps achimspook would care to present his or her full theory regarding the events of 911. No truther here ever has,so I won't hold my breath.
black building on the right, Brooklyn Bridge on the left, piers ahead
I guess that's the ~340° wind.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
LOL, thanks for showing yet another picture with smoke coming clearly from WTC 7, and other smoke coming from WTC 6 or the pile separately.
Keep debunking your claims, dude. You make it sooooo easy
LOL, thanks for showing yet another picture with smoke coming clearly from WTC 7, ... blee blah blup ... You make it sooooo easy
You think it is easy. Only idiots do.
It's 3pm. Fires first obseved at 1pm spread across the east and west face and across 30-50% of the north face (2 hours). What do you think did these fires do between 10:28 and 1pm (2.5 hours)?
Btw, a little change in the direction of the wind and the smoke of the upper half of the building is completely gone despite the fact of fire at the lower floors.
Close up of you burning glass inferno:
Any idea why no fire at any floor above 13 spread to the east or west or even the north face? There was no fire but the early fires and the early fires surprisingly didn't spread too. The early fires just died down and where never seen again.
30 minutes later the fire at 12 spread 6 columns further to the west and the fire at 7 almost died down while the fire at 8 already reached column 47.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
achimspok, wake me up when you have something relevant and interesting to say.
I long ago lost interest in this exercise, and your futile attempts to obscure the fact that there were extensive fires in WTC 7. Yes, futile.....
buh-bye
I long ago lost interest in this exercise, and your futile attempts to obscure the fact that there were extensive fires in WTC 7. Yes, futile.....
buh-bye
Allow me to do what you do all the time. The red line is heading towrds the Brooklyn bridge (as if anyone really cares):
The blue lines, however, are probably a more accurate representation of the wind at building level (but, maybe not ... maybe winds higher up vary from winds lower down? Heard of that? Perhaps it was blowing towards the bridge down there). Even then the blue lines strike me as somewhat conservative in your favour.
Anyhow the blue lines are almost precisely what I drew in earlier on in this little debate here , (post #725) something you strongly objected to preferring a deliberate misrepresentation of the plume in a satellite photo.
Back then you refused to analyse the vortex effect in light of the suggested wind direction, now you have no excuse as you have posted self-contradictory evidence. Go on - draw in some curly lines. Don't forget the Verizon, btw.
Like others I'll quit this nonsense and wait for you to come up with a consistent narrative.
Last edited:
If I remind it right then you are the one who tried to lecture me about every single degree of wind direction while we already had the Central Park measurements as some kind of estimate.
There is no need to cut away the plume. Your red line in your last post is indeed the direction towards the Brooklyn Bridge just like your pink line in the satellite image I posted. Both are wrong even if the wind might come "close" to that for several minutes. Who cares? It doesn't matter for any of the "south face totally engulfed" pictures as presented in the FEMA report or even at "9/11myth" website suggesting fire on those floors.
In post #725 you suggested a 310° wind. Even if it blew some minutes that way, what the hell does it change? Nothing. Hot smoke billows upwards. The wake effect of the wind depends on the width of the surface. You ask, why the tower of the Verizon didn't suck the smoke backwards from the WTC6 crater? And you deny the wake effect of WTC7 at all?
Here is why the Verizon cannot suck back the smoke against your wrong wind direction.
1) it's AGANIST your wind
2) the Verizon tower is too far away and not wide enough to cause that suction
I posted an image of the rubble that obviously didn't answered your question even if the answer is obvious.
You posted another and another and another "corrections" of the wind direction stating that either both buildings should show a wake effect or no building.
That's your 725 image:
pink = your wind
blue = wake effects
red = smoke direction you deny even if visible in video and photographs
green = smoke direction you expect instead
Maybe this image shows that your question isn't a question at all because you easily would have figured out that...
Nevertheless, even the Verizon shows a wake effect
The consistent narrative is told (two times) already.
In short:
The NIST report on WTC7 started with the conclusion as written in the Interim Report years earlier. They selectivly present photographs to back that conclusion and made a simulation to back that conclusion. That simulation do not fit in the preconditions but exactly arrives at the conclusion. Nevertheless that result is wrong because NIST misinterpreted the first stage of the movement of the building.
It's like starting with the conclusion that Santa Clause exist and to back that conclusion by a Pixar animation. It's not that hard to animate a fire that cooks column 79 on 5+ floors one above the other if you know that you have to cook 79 on 5+ floors one above the other. The problem is, the visual evidence do not show that fire - neither at 1pm nor at 5pm.
I'm done too until someone has any evidence or argument
- for the alleged fires on 15 or 20 floors
- for the slow vertical movement as described in the NIST report "stage 1"
- for any fire in the SE of floor 11,12,13 at or prior to 1pm
- for intense fires near column 79,80,81 at the SEC floors
- to refute the existence of the wake effect that sucked the smoke up the south face and resulted in vertical vortexes along the vertical edges of the south face
- or any explanation (that in the slightest makes any sense) for the disappearance of smoke from the south face whenever the wind changed while the visible floors are allegedly on fire anyhow
- or any explanation why smoke billows out of unbroken windows
- or any explanation for why the the half way down blind in the corner window of 38 is just visible in the left window but not in the right window.
Expert Alienentity: "It is not a lie to post the NIST damage descriptions and refer to them correctly. As I did. Unless you think facts are lies."
NIST damage descriptions =/= facts per se
It's a lie to present it as equal.
The evidence for fire meets column 79:
Floor 11,12,13 about 1.5 hours prior to the collapse:
Floor 11,12,13 about 1 hour prior to the collapse:
but suddenly 30 minutes prior to the collapse:
a spot of fire at 13:
and the same spot of fire at 5:20pm:
NIST:
...it obviously wasn't the only time but some kind of free fall buckling:
There is no need to cut away the plume. Your red line in your last post is indeed the direction towards the Brooklyn Bridge just like your pink line in the satellite image I posted. Both are wrong even if the wind might come "close" to that for several minutes. Who cares? It doesn't matter for any of the "south face totally engulfed" pictures as presented in the FEMA report or even at "9/11myth" website suggesting fire on those floors.
In post #725 you suggested a 310° wind. Even if it blew some minutes that way, what the hell does it change? Nothing. Hot smoke billows upwards. The wake effect of the wind depends on the width of the surface. You ask, why the tower of the Verizon didn't suck the smoke backwards from the WTC6 crater? And you deny the wake effect of WTC7 at all?
Here is why the Verizon cannot suck back the smoke against your wrong wind direction.
1) it's AGANIST your wind
2) the Verizon tower is too far away and not wide enough to cause that suction
I posted an image of the rubble that obviously didn't answered your question even if the answer is obvious.
You posted another and another and another "corrections" of the wind direction stating that either both buildings should show a wake effect or no building.
That's your 725 image:
pink = your wind
blue = wake effects
red = smoke direction you deny even if visible in video and photographs
green = smoke direction you expect instead
Maybe this image shows that your question isn't a question at all because you easily would have figured out that...
Nevertheless, even the Verizon shows a wake effect
The consistent narrative is told (two times) already.
In short:
The NIST report on WTC7 started with the conclusion as written in the Interim Report years earlier. They selectivly present photographs to back that conclusion and made a simulation to back that conclusion. That simulation do not fit in the preconditions but exactly arrives at the conclusion. Nevertheless that result is wrong because NIST misinterpreted the first stage of the movement of the building.
It's like starting with the conclusion that Santa Clause exist and to back that conclusion by a Pixar animation. It's not that hard to animate a fire that cooks column 79 on 5+ floors one above the other if you know that you have to cook 79 on 5+ floors one above the other. The problem is, the visual evidence do not show that fire - neither at 1pm nor at 5pm.
I'm done too until someone has any evidence or argument
- for the alleged fires on 15 or 20 floors
- for the slow vertical movement as described in the NIST report "stage 1"
- for any fire in the SE of floor 11,12,13 at or prior to 1pm
- for intense fires near column 79,80,81 at the SEC floors
- to refute the existence of the wake effect that sucked the smoke up the south face and resulted in vertical vortexes along the vertical edges of the south face
- or any explanation (that in the slightest makes any sense) for the disappearance of smoke from the south face whenever the wind changed while the visible floors are allegedly on fire anyhow
- or any explanation why smoke billows out of unbroken windows
- or any explanation for why the the half way down blind in the corner window of 38 is just visible in the left window but not in the right window.
Expert Alienentity: "It is not a lie to post the NIST damage descriptions and refer to them correctly. As I did. Unless you think facts are lies."
NIST damage descriptions =/= facts per se
It's a lie to present it as equal.
The evidence for fire meets column 79:
Floor 11,12,13 about 1.5 hours prior to the collapse:
Floor 11,12,13 about 1 hour prior to the collapse:
but suddenly 30 minutes prior to the collapse:
a spot of fire at 13:
and the same spot of fire at 5:20pm:
NIST:
...it obviously wasn't the only time but some kind of free fall buckling:
Last edited: