• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris, you are still referring to smoke that bounced on B7 from surrounding buildings as evidence of fire inside B7, because people on this forum have told you to do that. NIST is not referring to this as evidence for fire inside 7 on practically all floors because that smoke came from other buildings and smothered the outside of 7. Richard and others have tried to explain this to you countless times, but you refuse to listen to anyone, even NIST, and you keep coming back with the same old mantra. You just label your video "undebunked" and think all is well.

You also have a habit of disappearing when confronted about this behavior Chris, as you have done a couple of times in that last few days. Take a look at my last reply to you, fx. You always make up excuses and disappear when you are confronted.
Click to expand...

Maybe chris doesn't like responding to you because you run off to your website and write up BS ?

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
The smoke here is not coming from 5 and 6. 5 is much too far SE (downwind) and 6 is virtually out at this point. Also, the smoke would have no business being pushed horizontally by the light NW breeze. It's issuing from the building from the windows (other shots show the individual plumes at each floor) under the influence of hot air, whether or not there were actually fires on the upper floors or smoke from lower down has risen inside the building.

 
gerrycan said:
You don't even comprehend....
Click to expand...
I'm not an engineer; therefore I have to rely on the bigger picture and on how other engineers have approached this. NISTs' conclusion is not absolute. And you're tipping your hat to a false choice fallacy. And you disengenuously hide your real opinions because you don't want your argument to unravel. Damage was already done.

Ziggi said:
Chris, you are still referring to smoke that bounced on B7 from surrounding buildings as evidence of fire inside B7
Click to expand...
And it appears experience has taught me well:

Grizzly Bear said:
Chris, I will not speak for TZ on this one, but I will say that my experience in these discussions usually deals with one of two rationalities:

1) The fires are claimed to be "small" due to the lack of visible flames from the exterior of the building
2) The smoke was not emanating from WTC 7, but instead from WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Click to expand...

No wonder you strategize in complex questions and false choices.
 
Spanx said:
Maybe you have never clapped eyes on the C38 connection and have no comprehension whatsoever of the topic at hand. Maybe if Chris wanted a spokesman he would appoint someone who had an inkling.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to ? You don't offer an alternative collapse mechanism apart from arsonists, thermite, explosives etc.

chris can speak for himself and he does, you need to remember this is an open forum and all are welcome to their views, it's not a censored Truther forum.
 
Last edited:
Spanx said:
Why would I need to ? You don't offer an alternative collapse mechanism apart from arsonists, thermite, explosives etc.
Click to expand...
We are talking about NISTs collapse mechanism

Spanx said:
chris can speak for himself and he does, you need to remember this is an open forum and all are welcome to their views, it's not a censored Truther forum.
Click to expand...
You are barely able to speak for yourself on the issue never mind anybody else.
My point is that if Chris wanted a spokesman, you are not equipped for that role.
 
gerrycan said:
We are talking about NISTs collapse mechanism


You are barely able to speak for yourself on the issue never mind anybody else.
My point is that if Chris wanted a spokesman, you are not equipped for that role.
Click to expand...

If only I was as special as you.

Tell you what, why don't you report all the posts you think are off topic if it makes you think you are going to get any closer to a new investigation, isn't that what your gripe is about ?
 
Spanx said:
If only I was as special as you.

Tell you what, why don't you report all the posts you think are off topic if it makes you think you are going to get any closer to a new investigation, isn't that what your gripe is about ?
Click to expand...

So, what is your opinion on the C38 connection?
I must have missed the part where you commented on that.
 
gerrycan said:
So, what is your opinion on the C38 connection?
I must have missed the part where you commented on that.
Click to expand...

Please explain how nist going wrong on this falsifies the entire fire induced proximate cause. I have no probablem giving you this leeway, but in that case it requires you to explain the basis for how no other proxinate causes stemming from fire cannot be more probable than your real conclusion
 
Spanx said:
Pay attention Gerry, I haven't commented on C38 and I don't need to. Read my earlier post.
Click to expand...

No. You can't comment on it because you have never looked at it. You clearly would not know where to start.
How can you then judge that something that you are unaware of does not merit comment?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Please explain how nist going wrong on this falsifies the entire fire induced proximate cause. I have no probablem giving you this leeway, but in that case it requires you to explain the basis for how no other proxinate causes stemming from fire cannot be more probable than your real conclusion
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for granting me that leeway. So benevolent of you.
The supposed proximate cause that is being discussed is NISTs. If you know of another fire induced proximate cause why are you keeping it all to yourself?
Your strawmanning does not change the facts.
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
Perhaps you misunderstand, Gerry. I'm merely drawing your attention to posts requiring your response. You've responded, so now other interested parties in this thread can respond to you, and I can observe and see whether it plays out in a similar manner to the way it usually does.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's playing out in a similar manner to the way it usually does :D
 
gerrycan said:
No. You can't comment on it because you have never looked at it. You clearly would not know where to start.
How can you then judge that something that you are unaware of does not merit comment?
Click to expand...

I can make my judgement simply by you posting here rather than going to the NIST.
 
GlennB said:
The smoke here is not coming from 5 and 6. 5 is much too far SE (downwind) and 6 is virtually out at this point. Also, the smoke would have no business being pushed horizontally by the light NW breeze. It's issuing from the building from the windows (other shots show the individual plumes at each floor) under the influence of hot air, whether or not there were actually fires on the upper floors or smoke from lower down has risen inside the building.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7smokemajor.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Glenn I have heard the arguments for wind blowing smoke from other buildings onto Building 7. There was some of that on 9/11, but this picture and several videos and photos on my YouTube tell me that smoke was pumping out of the building horizontally and very aggressively. Oystein's explanation, "Since the prevailing wind was from the northwest, airflow would have been predominantly from north and west towards south and east, possibly pushing smoke out of windows far away from any fire. So smoke emanating from any window is only weak evidence for a fire being nearby:" Very interesting. Thanks Oystein. I consider NIST to have been too conservative, and I still believe that there were likely fires on floors not specifically named by NIST. They set a high standard and were conservative, which is fine, but Glenn's picture and several videos I have dug up and eyewitness accounts by first responders on my YouTube videos tell me that in reality, it is likely that there were fires on more floors than NIST said... even with Oystein's caveat, which I also accept.
Spanx, it is not true that I don't respond to Ziggi because of stupid things he says on other posts. Tony, Ziggi and MM are very intelligent, observant people whose posts I take seriously on a technical level. I choose not to engage with Ziggi because I consider him to be abusive, and I choose the people with whom I interact. Ziggi knows this, I have already wished him well in his research and said my goodbyes in private emails. I know there is plenty of nastiness on both sides on this rough playground of a forum, but when someone puts me down personally, it's bye-bye time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom