• 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.

Wtc 7

bill smith said:
They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. I've worked with many smoke generators, in about 15 year of acting/tech theatre and none of them look like that. (unless you're basing this argumnt soley on the fact that "smoke" is being pushed out.)
 
Redtail said:
No it doesn't. I've worked with many smoke generators, in about 15 year of acting/tech theatre and none of them look like that. (unless you're basing this argumnt soley on the fact that "smoke" is being pushed out.)
Click to expand...

Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
 
In a vain attempt to prompt some rationality, bill smith, can you show a few videos of real smoke from buildings that were genuinely on fire, then explain exactly how and why they look different to WTC7? Or is that too much like intelligent analysis for your tastes?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In a vain attempt to prompt some rationality, bill smith, can you show a few videos of real smoke from buildings that were genuinely on fire, then explain exactly how and why they look different to WTC7? Or is that too much like intelligent analysis for your tastes?

Dave
Click to expand...

Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5
Click to expand...

WTC5 and 6 had collapses internally due to fire, you are so funny as you lack knowledge and make up cute idiotic statements. BTW, did anyone put water on WTC5?

Do you want to see the internal failures of steel in WTC5 or 6? Are you really this ignorant on fires?
You need to step it up, your apologies for terrorist are weak.


Oops, they save the building by putting water on it; darn you posted a video of firemen fighting WTC5 fire. Not real smart to debunk your own stupid ideas with your own post.


124474550e45019258.jpg

Yeppers, WTC5 is ready to be used right now!!! Wowzer, no fire damage there! Good job expert 911Truth man. Great work. Better sign up for your Pulitzer Prize.

I guess you are not familiar with any of the 10,000 pages of NIST. Sad. Knowledge would save you from displaying piles of ignorance.

wtc7fire3.jpg

Wow, that is a small fire in WTC7, you are right again, you are totally knowledge free on 911. Did you know the firemen knew WTC7 could fall and hour or two before it fell all due to un-fought fires which is always a danger and many times firemen have abandoned fire fighting efforts due to possible collapse. Darn, the things you could learn if you wanted to try stop apologizing for terrorists and think for yourself instead of googling your way through ignorance on 911.
 
Last edited:
Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)
 
dtugg said:
Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are enjoying the show. I hope you brushed your teeth if you are going to laugh in my face.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).
Click to expand...

Could you make a special effort, and come up with a line of argument that doesn't involve lying? The idea that less smoke comes from a smaller building on fire (despite the fact that other conspiracy theorists have argued that all the smoke came from WTC5) is completely irrelevant to your original suggestion that it was the dynamics of the smoke, not the amount, that was suspicious.

It's painfully obvious that your approach to 9/11 is to start by picking a phenomenon at random, claim it's suspect, then invent a flimsy rationalisation for that belief. When someone questions that rationalisation, you simply invent a different one. Nobody's fooled by it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
Click to expand...

So now you can just look at smoke and tell what made it? How long have you had this talent?

I'm sure that your untrained eye looking at a video many years after the event is better that all the professionals who were there actually experiencing it.:rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
Could you make a special effort, and come up with a line of argument that doesn't involve lying? The idea that less smoke comes from a smaller building on fire (despite the fact that other conspiracy theorists have argued that all the smoke came from WTC5) is completely irrelevant to your original suggestion that it was the dynamics of the smoke, not the amount, that was suspicious.

It's painfully obvious that your approach to 9/11 is to start by picking a phenomenon at random, claim it's suspect, then invent a flimsy rationalisation for that belief. When someone questions that rationalisation, you simply invent a different one. Nobody's fooled by it.



Dave
Click to expand...

I note that you excised my link to the raging inferno in WTC5 and can only conclude that you do not like the comparison with the much,much smaller fires in WTC7 which NIST say caused it to totally collapse despite it being one of the strongest steel structures ever constructed in the World history of such buidings. I repost the link to WTC5 for completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

The rest of your post is rambling and indecisive so I will lay out the framework for why I think smoke generators may have been used in WTC7 to create the illusion that 'where there is smoke there must be fire'.

Ifyou look at the video of WTC5 burning you will note that the heavy smoke is not apparent in the areas where there is serious fire.It appears to be rising away from where the raging inferno ends near the top of the buiidng.
In WTC7 the heavy smoke begins more or less at ground level, indicating that there was no raging inforno inside (otherewise we would have seen roaring flames and no smoke inthe area of fire, as can be seen in the WTC5 video). Considering that the fires were supposedly started by rubble from the North Tower we can easonably assume that the fires were right inside the South Wall where the smoke was coming from. So you see where I am going ? Small fires producing a mountain of smoke can only mean one thing--smoke generators like the one n the video I showed earlier.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I note that you excised my link to the raging inferno in WTC5 and can only conclude that you do not like the comparion with the much,much smaller fires in WTC7 which NIST say caused it to totally collapse despite it being one of the strongest steel structures ever constructed in the World history of cuch buidings. I repost the link to WTC5 for completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

The rest of your post is rambling and indecisive so I will lay out the framework for why I think smoke generators may have been used in WTC7 to create the illusion that 'where there is smoke there must be fire'.

Ifyou look at the video of WTC5 burning you will note that the heavy smoke is not apparent in the areas where there is serious fire.It appears to be rising away from where the raging inferno ends near the top of the buiidng.
In WTC7 the heavy smoke begins more or less at ground level, indicating that there was no raging inforno inside (otherewise we would have seen roaring flames and no smoke inthe area of fire, as can be seen in the WTC5 video). Considering that the fires were supposedly started by rubble from the North Towr we can easonably assume that the fires were right inside the South Wall where the smoke was coming from. So you see where I am going ? Small fires producing a mountain of smoke can only mean one thing--smoke generators like the one n the video I showed earlier.
Click to expand...

So roaring fires do not produce smoke only smoke generators do that.

Bill have you ever heard" Where there's smoke there's fire" or is that just an old wives tale?
 
bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

ETA: I just had a thought. I can picture workmen carrying large boxes and distributing them around the WTC. When asked what they were, muttering "uhhhh....brand new copy machines sir. Nothing to see here. Move along..."
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

ETA: I just had a thought. I can picture workmen carrying large boxes and distributing them around the WTC. When asked what they were, muttering "uhhhh....brand new copy machines sir. Nothing to see here. Move along..."
Click to expand...

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL
 
twinstead said:
bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
Click to expand...
Something in his behavior has given you the expectation of an honest answer? I pronounce you the most optimistic person in the universe! :D

Nothing to see here but dead horses.
 
bill smith said:
Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL
Click to expand...

How did you calculate this? Please show your work.
 
Why is 911Truth full of delusions of thermite?

There comes a time when your silence becomes betrayal
The time has come when your lack of knowledge on 911 betrays you
124474550e45019258.jpg

WTC5 destroyed by fire. How ironic. The same happened to WTC7.

Only a few fringe people fail to comprehend WTC7 failed due to fire. Knowledge is the key; 911Truth lost their key.
 
bill smith said:
Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.
Click to expand...

You're using the behaviour of the smoke to determine the intensity of the fires, then claiming that the behaviour of the smoke from WTC7 is inconsistent with the size of the fires that you've just deduced from it. That's not circular logic, it's Moebius logic.

The possibility, of course, that you've chosen to ignore is that there were very large fires inside WTC7 - which was, after all, a very large building - but that most of them were not close to the exterior walls at the time your video was recorded. The reason that you've chosen to ignore that possibility is that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the behaviour of the smoke, is consistent with the fire modelling results published in the NIST report, and doesn't carry the faintest suggestion of anything underhand going on with WTC7.

Oh, and "rambling and indecisive"? There's nothing indecisive about pointing out that you're lying, and there's nothing rambling about pointing out that you're changing your lie whenever it suits you.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom