• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)

Redtail said:
That it wasn't just fire that caused the collapse. Think real hard about it. (Hint, how did those fires start on 9/11)




Fixed.
Click to expand...

I guess the same way fires started in the Pirelli Tower. The Pirelli tower is still there, btw. :jaw-dropp
 
NoahFence said:
Where there's smoke!

That's the south side of the building.


[qimg]http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q195/strido527/ZafarWTC7.jpg[/qimg]

Now, I know this is a real stupid question, but I'm a real stupid person. So I'll ask anyway.

Is that proof enough for you?
Click to expand...

You see all that smoke? It's coming from WTC6.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
Since when? Directly across the street WTC3 was a raging inferno. Pictures show firemen fighting that fire with, gasp, a firetruck. The wind was blowing all the smoke across the street and up the side of WTC7 (hence the smoke picture shown by another poster here). Ironically, WTC3 did not collapse from the inferno. Again, go figure.
Click to expand...

300+ Firefighters were buried.

That fire truck you refer to - enough to fight both WTC7 and WTC3 on its own?
Yes? No?

As for the wind blowing smoke from 3 up the south side of 7, you could go a thousand years making posts and none will ever amount to the level of wrong you just posted.

Awesome.
 
KreeL said:
You see all that smoke? It's coming from WTC3.
Click to expand...

Then why is it thicker at the windows of 7, and spreading outward?

That comment of yours is why someone came up with the phrase "Epic Fail".

ETA - you may want to google images "wtc complex" and find out where WTC 3 actually was in relation to WTC 7.

Or not. You may want to wallow in ignorance and stupidity. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
:boggled:

Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'. Flames were shooting out the windows which blew out from the 'full involvement'. Fire covered floors 11-16 and included the cores. Real NYFD firemen went in and 6 hours later the fire was out. It did not collapse. If it had happened on 9/11 with the new non-twoofer physics, it would have collapsed years ago.

Edited to add: I don't remember reading about any firemen saying the the tower was going to collapse at any point. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Jeesus. Another truther talking out of his ass...

Don't you people ever venture outside of woo web?

wiki said:
On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment. Fireproofing protected the steel and there was no structural damage to the tower. Other than the damage caused by the fire, a few floors below suffered water damage from the extinguishing of the fires above. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[90][91]
Click to expand...

I don't find any source that backs up a single word of your post. You suck at this, go find something better to do.
 
NoahFence said:
Then why is it thicker at the windows of 7, and spreading outward?

That comment of yours is why someone came up with the phrase "Epic Fail".

ETA - you may want to google images "wtc complex" and find out where WTC 3 actually was in relation to WTC 7.

Or not. You may want to wallow in ignorance and stupidity. To each his own.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Noah, but you may want to check other angles of your 'smoke' pic.

And I already corrected my mistake on WTC3. It was WTC6 - as you can see my correction above.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
Since when? Directly across the street WTC6 was a raging inferno. Pictures show firemen fighting that fire with, gasp, a firetruck. The wind was blowing all the smoke across the street and up the side of WTC7 (hence the smoke picture shown by another poster here). Ironically, WTC6 did not collapse from the inferno. Again, go figure.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They were using firefighting resources on other buildings, with none left over.
 
Sabretooth said:
Jeesus. Another truther talking out of his ass...

Don't you people ever venture outside of woo web?



I don't find any source that backs up a single word of your post. You suck at this, go find something better to do.
Click to expand...

I posted from memory. You obviously just found out about the earlier fire? If you google it, I think the original Times article is still somewhere on the web. Check it out and see if it helps you.
 
000063 said:
Exactly. They were using firefighting resources on other buildings, with none left over.
Click to expand...

Actually no. The heat inside WTC7 wasn't too intense because the windows weren't blown out. You can clearly see the flames behind the glass in the photos of WTC7. WTC6 was an inferno so they must have prioritized their firefighting to the worst of the fires.
 
KreeL said:
Actually no. The heat inside WTC7 wasn't too intense because the windows weren't blown out. You can clearly see the flames behind the glass in the photos of WTC7. WTC6 was an inferno so they must have prioritized their firefighting to the worst of the fires.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie?

I'm genuinely curious.
 
KreeL said:
Actually no. The heat inside WTC7 wasn't too intense because the windows weren't blown out. You can clearly see the flames behind the glass in the photos of WTC7. WTC6 was an inferno so they must have prioritized their firefighting to the worst of the fires.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with my claim.
 
KreeL said:
To emphasize it was smoke and not fire. Some bedunkers get confused.
Click to expand...
AHA!

Potential ergo sockpuppetry aside, that's grammatically incorrect. you should've used bold, italics, or highlights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom