Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If there is no such evidence, why would you assume there was an inferno?

Nice try at shifting the goalposts. You fail. Let's recap the stunt you just tried:

1) Photo is presented
2) RedIbis is not satisfied with said photo and demands a photo showing "WTC 7 engulfted in flames"
3) It is pointed out that lack of such a photo has no bearing on whether there was an inferno or not.
4) RedIbis generalizes this and suggests that there is no such photo, and that there is no other source of evidence to support said conclusion.

Here's an easy one for you RedIbis, present a single piece of evidence that is factual, and objective that falsifies the hypothesis that WTC 7 experienced an "inferno". Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence. You have to use what evidence there is, be it photographic, eye-witness accounts, etc to do this. "Go Team Venture!"

 

[cmcaulif]

1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.

for comparison, here is the bankers trust building:

There are many windows blown out, and the same will have happened to building 7, likely even worse given the first photo posted. This means that there would be good ventilation conditions for a hot fire. All of the windows in the video were blown out from heat alone however, that is quite significant.

2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.

ehh, I did suggest a way to indicate the time, I'm not sure what you are referring to is an assumption. Firefighters and other rescue workers are seen in the video near to the building and they are actively continuing their operations. According to retired FDNY chief Daniel Nigro all operations were halted and a collapse perimeter, which is equal to the height of the building plus half the height of the building IIRC was cleared around 7 three hours before collapse. So this indicates that the video was taken at least three hours before collapse occurred.

 

[RedIbis]

Here's an easy one for you RedIbis, present a single piece of evidence that is factual, and objective that falsifies the hypothesis that WTC 7 experienced an "inferno". Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence. You have to use what evidence there is, be it photographic, eye-witness accounts, etc to do this. "Go Team Venture!"

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

But first I want to call your attention to something. You said, "Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence."
Isn't that my point? You lack a photograph of WTC 7 engulfed in flames, and you're right, the lack of a photograph is not evidence.

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

[qimg]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg[/qimg]

Can you tell me what's happening in that photo on the bottom 20 floors?

Given that the building collapse FROM THE BOTTOM, it might be important to know what's happening on the bottom floors, don't you think?

 

[RedIbis]

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg[/qimg]

for comparison, here is the bankers trust building:


[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg[/qimg]
.

I always found that abc news photo of WTC 7 fascinating. This photo deserves its own thread, so I'll refrain from discussing the prevailing theories about what created such symetrical damage, but to the point, even this very interesting photo does not show a building engulfed in an inferno.

Similarly, the Bankers Trust building is not badly burned, and although it suffered damage, it didn't collapse.

 

[RedIbis]

Can you tell me what's happening in that photo on the bottom 20 floors?

Given that the building collapse FROM THE BOTTOM, it might be important to know what's happening on the bottom floors, don't you think?

As an exercise in objectivity, I'm going to wait and see how long it takes for a regular here to correct you on an obvious error.

 

[e^n]

These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

Wait just a second, which fires are you referring to here? Plenty of windows were broken which were not directly impacted, hasn't Gravy called you on this before?

As an exercise in objectivity, I'm going to wait and see how long it takes for a regular here to correct you on an obvious error.

A wild swing here but I'm going to go for 'East Penthouse'? If so, please read the NIST interim report more thoroughly.

 

[cmcaulif]

I always found that abc news photo of WTC 7 fascinating. This photo deserves its own thread, so I'll refrain from discussing the prevailing theories about what created such symetrical damage, but to the point, even this very interesting photo does not show a building engulfed in an inferno.

I never said it did, I was talking about broken windows, you asked for a picture of the SS and I posted one. The quotes from the first responders saying the building was 'fully involved' came from much later in the day.

Similarly, the Bankers Trust building is not badly burned, and although it suffered damage, it didn't collapse.

well the bankers trust suffered a partial collapse, which was arrested. There was also not a large fire in it in the first place. My point was to show that even ignoring structural damage, the fact that 7 was hit with so much debris makes for ideal conditions for an office fire, since the temperature in a fire is partially dependent on ventilation.

 

[beachnut]

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

I cheated, I talked to people who saw WTC7 on fire out of control. You use one photo. Oops you messed up. The building burned all day until it collapsed. That is what fire does, destroys steel. You have not researched this topic, you just make up small talk. If this is the best you have, you have lost this debate, you did not even answer the question properly. Do you understand the question? Ask your mommy to help you.

You are cherry picking photos, you need to do better if you are going to show no fire.

Next time do not show a photo of a building with 500 feet of smoke pouring out of the building all day long. Smoke? You need to watch some old Bond films for the key line evidence.

Funny stuff, you claim no big fire, but I see smoke pouring out of the building all day long. You debunk your very post with your own evidence. (now all you need is some witnesses who were there who can support your ideas; you will fail)

 

[RedIbis]

I never said it did, I was talking about broken windows, you asked for a picture of the SS and I posted one. The quotes from the first responders saying the building was 'fully involved' came from much later in the day.
.

Fair enough. Can you please post a photo of the south side, later in the day when it is fully engulfed in an inferno?

So far, neither the north nor south side appear to be engulfed in much fire.

 

[RedIbis]

Ask your mommy to help you.

]

Is this really necessary?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Is this really necessary?

Focus, RedIbis. Focus... Report the insults, address the legitimate points. You've got a long way to go.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Many of the firefighters report getting the word, or that the word had come down that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Yes, "COLLAPSE", not demolition.

Read these quotes carefully. Very few of them report massive fires.

Nearly all of them report massive fires.

You claim to have read the testimonies Gravy compiled yet claim that they say something oppoiste of what they did say.

Are you lying about having read them at all, or lying about what they said?

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts,

That's not true at all. You have contested the eyewitness reports at every turn. You refuse to believe what they say.

but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.

You don't have any of that on your side either.

 

[beachnut]

Is this really necessary?

I am sorry. I thought you were a kid. I thought after you posted a photo of a 47 story building smoking more than any fire I have ever seen before 9/11; I thought your mommy could help you understand why steel fails in fire. I am sorry, I have no idea how old you are, but you are posting like you are a very young person with no real experience or knowledge about 9/11 or the systems involved. My mistake; I am sorry again, it is wrong to think you are 7 or 8. I work with 4 and 5th graders, and they show much more knowledge and experience in matters like this. It is amazing how my class ran a simulated space mission. Based on your posts, I thought you were very young. Sorry, but I thought you needed some guidance and help.

I did not mean an insult, it was advice; I still ask my mommy for help with the big issues.

 

[cmcaulif]

Fair enough. Can you please post a photo of the south side, later in the day when it is fully engulfed in an inferno?

So far, neither the north nor south side appear to be engulfed in much fire.

To my knowledge, there are not any photos of the south side at the time of collapse. Here are a few first responders who give testimonies that indicate that they are speaking at the time of the collapse, or thereabouts however:

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

They also say things like fully involved in fire, completely involved in fire, and fire on virtually every floor.

It seems reasonable that firemen would have been able to see fire in a large number of floors from the south side given the amount of smoke seen blowing out of the south side in your photo, as well as other photos at the time of collapse

 

[Corsair 115]

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak...

And what about the other side of the building, you know, the side not seen in the photo? Notice the large amount of smoke behind the building? Might that be indicative of something?

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm curious where RedIbis thinks the smoke came from, if there had been no fire... The plume was comparable to that from the WTC Towers themselves.

It certainly wasn't left over smoke, not after so many hours.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I'm curious where RedIbis thinks the smoke came from, if there had been no fire... The plume was comparable to that from the WTC Towers themselves.

It certainly wasn't left over smoke, not after so many hours.

Fog machines. Lots and lots of fog machines.

Or maybe dry ice. Lots and lots of dry ice.

 

[Disbelief]

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.

So why do you hold Rodriguez up as a beacon of truth? His eyewitness account, no matter how it has changed, is gospel for you in spite off all of the physical evidence. Now, the FDNY eyewitnesses are trumped by a few pictures.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

But first I want to call your attention to something. You said, "Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence."
Isn't that my point? You lack a photograph of WTC 7 engulfed in flames, and you're right, the lack of a photograph is not evidence.

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg

Way to demonstrate a complete, and utter lack of reading comprehension on your part. Let me help you out some by taking this to an even more granular level:
You are making several claims, first:
P1) If there is an inferno in WTC 7, then it must be visible in photos
P2) It is not visible in photos
C) There is no inferno

Please substantiate P1

Second:
P1) If there is an inferno in WTC 7, then all the windows must be broken out
P2) Not all the windows are broken out
C) There is no inferno

Please substantiate P1