Windows Breaking From Heat

[Bell]

Are you seriously claiming that if there is no photographic/video evidence of an event that it can not be established if it occurred or not?

I guess he just likes pictures or something. Pictures is better than reading - something Troof1234 hasn't mastered.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I guess he just likes pictures or something. Pictures is better than reading - something Troof1234 hasn't mastered.

I wonder how he feels about a picture of WTC7 being struck by thousands of tons of debris?

 

[Bell]

I wonder how he feels about a picture of WTC7 being struck by thousands of tons of debris?

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/91104.jpg[/qimg]

He'll asks why you are dodging his questions?

 

[DavidJames]

I'm not interested in tables. It's too easy to just make up stuff and type it in. The whole point is we don't believe the government reports. I'm looking for actual evidence, that is videos of windows falling and flames licking out. Next best would be a set of two pictures of the same window taken at two different points in time.

Evidence please.

Actually, what you are really saying is

I don't have the ability or resources to perform my own actual analysis. Even if I did, I'm not smart enough to analyze it. About the only thing I can do is look at pictures and guess at what I think should happen.

I'm sorry, but I need to rant...

Face it troll, there is no one on "your team" with any worthwhile knowledge or expertise in the fields in which they pontificate their crap. The Jones boys don't, Ross doesn't, you've got no one.

Face it troll, every one of your false attempts at injecting science has been addressed and thoroughly refuted, and every time you've run away.

Face it troll, you're not smart enough to debate facts. The depth of your analysis ends at declaring this picture doesn't look like that picture or simply it doesn't look like you think it should. No doubt there are things that can be learned from viewing pictures or videos. But before I give a rats behind about your opinions, why don't you tell me a bit about your education, experience and working knowledge which would suggest anyone should care about your opinions.

You say you're "not interested in tables. It's too easy to just make up stuff and type it in". The people who produced the official reports have put their names and reputations on the line. You can look them up, contact them. Who the rule8 are you to call them liars. Do you have the balls to follow up on that troll? Do you have the balls to approach the authors of the data you claim is "made up" and challenge them? Who the rule8 are you but an anonymous Internet troll without the guts to step up in public and stand behind his beliefs.

Sorry Troll, you are a pathetic loser.

You can easily refute this by showing specifically what analysis in the official reports with which you disagree, include the page numbers. Along with the disagreement you should show your supporting data and evidence along with the analysis which leads to a different conclusion.

Prove me wrong Troll, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[apathoid]

OK, Lieteller. Since the premise of your idiotic thread is that the fires were mild and isolated, I give you: (hap-tip Kent1)
http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931732

....a raging inferno. Now answer honestly.

1. Is this fire mild and isolated?
2. If yes, why did many(dozens of?) people jump to their death?
3. Was the LA skyscraper fire this bad(provide photgraphic evidence, if yes)??

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you want to talk about running away from the issues, let's talk about NIST, who spent $20,000,000 and did not study the collapses.

Yes, in the linked picture I observe debris hitting the top of WTC7. Compare that to WTC6, which was far smaller and had far more debris rain on it. Debris pummeled huge craters from roof to ground, yet, the part of the building which remained, stood there. Can someone give me a concise explanation of how debris raining on the roof of WTC7, and across the south face, can lead to the observations made at 5:20 later that afternoon? If so, NIST would like to hear from you, because they certainly haven't figured it out yet.

I also observe a 110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions, with a mushroom cloud in the process of forming. Here's a similar shot taken a few moments later, mushroom cloud well formed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you want to talk about running away from the issues, let's talk about NIST, who spent $20,000,000 and did not study the collapses.

Yes, in the linked picture I observe debris hitting the top of WTC7. Compare that to WTC6, which was far smaller and had far more debris rain on it. Debris pummeled huge craters from roof to ground, yet, the part of the building which remained, stood there. Can someone give me a concise explanation of how debris raining on the roof of WTC7, and across the south face, can lead to the observations made at 5:20 later that afternoon? If so, NIST would like to hear from you, because they certainly haven't figured it out yet.

I also observe a 110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions, with a mushroom cloud in the process of forming. Here's a similar shot taken a few moments later, mushroom cloud well formed.
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg[/qimg]

I believe this thread is for discussing "Windows Breaking From Heat". I suggest creating a new thread for your new topic, preferably after you have resolved your multitude of other threads/topics/posts.

 

[Cylinder]

CNN As It Happenned Part 1. 0849-1025 EDT

From the first report to the first WTC collapse. There are many replays of the aircraft actually striking WTC-2 as well as the live coverage. Near the end, you can see the rows of broken windows.

CNN As It Happenned Part 2 1025 - 1354 EDT

The aftermath.

 

[apathoid]

If you want to talk about running away from the issues, let's talk about NIST, who spent $20,000,000 and did not study the collapses.

Wow.

Can someone give me a concise explanation of how debris raining on the roof of WTC7, and across the south face, can lead to the observations made at 5:20 later that afternoon? If so, NIST would like to hear from you, because they certainly haven't figured it out yet.

Have you read anything during your stay here? NISTs interim report on WTC7?

I also observe a 110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions, with a mushroom cloud in the process of forming. Here's a similar shot taken a few moments later, mushroom cloud well formed.

Mushroom cloud ? Is he saying what I think he's saying?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

And while we're looking at your picture above, can someone please give me an answer to this:

Where does the energy come from to move those tons of debris sideways 300+ feet, when that material must have come from the top of the tower which was only falling at about 20-30 mph? It first got pulverized, then it bounced off something with enough force to move it 300 feet sideways, is that right?

 

[Loss Leader]

This is Shmendrick1234's MO. He starts a new thread where he demands that we disprove some piece of evidence or another, gets his ass beat, and then shifts the discussion to something else entirely without conceding defeat. In this case, he has now ever-of-subtly implied that a nuclear frickin' bomb went off in the towers. Why? He hopes to get us talking about that and thereby slink away from his windows/no windows dead-end.

It's really become tiring. He refuses to stand and defend his opinions.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan suggests a new thread. I agree. I see no evidence for fires hot enough to break windows.

here is a requested pic of 1st interstate bank, a far hotter fire that consumed far more of the building

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Don't think it was a nuke, Jones tested for radiation. But we all observe the mushroom cloud. Observations require explanations.

 

[Cylinder]

Where does the energy come from to move those tons of debris sideways 300+ feet, when that material must have come from the top of the tower which was only falling at about 20-30 mph?

If I understand your question correctly, the energy comes from force of gravity which accelerates the chunk toward the gravitational center of the Earth plus the electromagnetic force which holds the atoms in the steel together and resisted movement of the chunk in a specific direction.

The twisting and collapse of the chunk can be seen quite clearly in the CNN archive linked.

 

[Loss Leader]

Observations require explanations.

A 767 hit the World Trade Center, shmendrick. Here's a picture.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you want to talk about running away from the issues, let's talk about NIST, who spent $20,000,000 and did not study the collapses.

LIAR!!!

Yes, in the linked picture I observe debris hitting the top of WTC7. Compare that to WTC6, which was far smaller and had far more debris rain on it. Debris pummeled huge craters from roof to ground, yet, the part of the building which remained, stood there. Can someone give me a concise explanation of how debris raining on the roof of WTC7, and across the south face, can lead to the observations made at 5:20 later that afternoon?

THE BUILDING GOT @#$%ED!!!

To turn one of the truthseeker cults favorite weapons against them; You don't need to be an engineer to realize that a building hit by thousands of tons of flying steel and concrete is S-K-R-0-0-D.

Here's a similar shot taken a few moments later, mushroom cloud well formed. [qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg[/qimg]

Oh my gawd... it's the red X of DOOOOOMMM!!!!












Oh... wait... my bad. It's actually the little red X of "lookitme I'm an HTML n00b". The two are often confused.

 

[apathoid]

Don't think it was a nuke, Jones tested for radiation. But we all observe the mushroom cloud. Observations require explanations.

Ok, so why are you talking about a mushroom cloud? Was it one gigantic squib(giggle) that brought down the towers? Did hundreds of smaller squibs(giggle) join to create on large squib(giggle), which created a mushroom cloud? Please explain this thing, I find the claim interesting if you arent talking about a mini-nuke(like some of your LC buddies).

Have you calculated the amount of explosives that would be needed to to do this:
....110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions, with a mushroom cloud in the process of forming

I'll remind you that you are talking about 3 million cubic feet of concrete and 300,000 tons of steel. Can you just ballpark it for me?

Dude, you dont even know what you are implying by the questions you are asking. How are we supposed to take you seriously?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

OK, so Loss Leader thinks that the aircraft impact somehow provided energy to propel the material 300 ft sideways an hour and a half later?? If any of the rest of you have intellectual honesty, you will correct him.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid was apparently serious when he asked

Ok, so why are you talking about a mushroom cloud?

Because we observe it, Apathoid. Observations require explanations. Science.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Arkan suggests a new thread. I agree. I see no evidence for fires hot enough to break windows.

how do you explain the NIST table of how many windows were out? if you feel that NIST is wrong you have to prove that, collect pictures form that day and count how many windows were out, show that it is more/less than NISTs table

Don't think it was a nuke, Jones tested for radiation. But we all observe the mushroom cloud. Observations require explanations.

debris being ejected from the collapsing towers. whats your explanation?