Don't play dumb. We spent pages arguing with you about how you said the origin of the smoke eminating from the WTC7 was really caused by the smoke and wake effect from the fire in WTC6. Now you're dancing around again.
My question, to clarify your logic: If the smoke from WTC6 could be drawn up the height of WTC7 by wind/wake effect, how can you discount that the smoke from WTC7 itself could also be drawn up by wind/wake effect?
It's you who play dumb. You argued that the wake effect cannot be drawn up the height of WTC7.
1) you draw the wrong direction of wind.
2) you didn't understand that a range of +/-45° always cause vortexes along the edges of the south face.
3) you tried to deny the photographic evidence of the wake effect up the height of WTC7 after the WTC2 collapse (same effect at the WFC and up the entire height of WTC1).
4) you misinterpreted the direction of the wind as shon in the satallite images, the Luc Courchesne video, Brooklyn Bridge video, ...
5) you showed (or alienentity) repeatedly showed the vortexes along the edges stating that smoke came out of the (unbroken) windows.
6) you (or alienentity) linked the Spak video showing early fires at 30, 29, 22 and 19 while ignoring that holy NIST stated that these fires died down without spreading.
7) you ignore(d) what NIST says about the fires.
8) you ignore video footage and photographic evidence that these fires indeed died down early without spreading far.
9) you (or someone else) cited witnesses (Bolyle, Rotanz) who saw 20 floors on fire burning "inferno" while the evidence clearly show that such a fire NEVER happened.
10) you (or someone else) cited Hayden about a bulge in a corner that wasn't there anymore while the photographic evidence shot later that day shows no bulge.
11) you ignore the photographic evidence and the Spak video showing that huge amounts of smoke eminating from the crater/roof of WTC6 was drawn towards Wtc7.
12) instead you expected a wake effect of the lower floors or the full height of the Verizon building while stating at the same time that the lower buildings cause less wind and ignoring the positional relation between crater and Verizon
13) you ignored that the smoke from the crater still must be there and do not disappear just because it billows up the south face.
14) you ignore that the Spak video at 1pm shows 2 distinct sources of smoke (the corner damage and piled up debris + WTC6) while no smoke or fire came from any of the SEC floors especially in the SE quater where NIST already did a little warm up for the simulation.
15) there is no evidence of any fire on any other floor then the floors mentioned in the NIST report - means (30,29,22,19 died down early + 7,8,9,11,12,13 first observed after 2pm)
Now, ...
Several posters have shown you images of thick, dark smoke coming from the windows of WTC7...you can't keep handwaving evidence and try to force a square peg in a round hole.
...you once again bring up either the early fires or images taken later that day (mostly after 3pm) to account for what?
I never denied any of the fires at 30,29,22,19 and 7,8,9,11,12,13. I perfectly know that smoke from these floors that didn't emerge in the north must somehow emerge in the south.
The point is,
1) until 2pm was no fire in the north or east or west because the early fires in the west already died down beyond any visible fire or smoke.
2) there is no evidence for any fire spreading through entire floors other than the later fires at lower floors mentioned in the NIST report.
3) those later fires especially at the SEC floors obviously developed without any sign until about 2pm
My initial questions were:
Where were these fires between 10:28am and 2pm without any visible fire or smoke?
...and it claerly do not help to show an image of smoke at 5pm.
Why did all the later fires consume entire floors while not one of the early fires did so?
...and it clearly do not help to show a vortex of smoke stating that the upper 20 floors burnt "inferno" and assuming that the entire building burnt as hell because of the south face covered in smoke.
What ignited the later fires if these fires were ignited after 10:28am?
...and it do not help to look into the NIST fire simulation because that simulation is VERY different to what the visual evidence show about the fires.
That leads to the final question:
How can a wrong precondition of such a complex and "chaotic" process lead to (not the right result but) the right result according to the predefined hypothesis?
... fires are unpredictable as hell. You don't need to be a firefighter to understand that.
Indeed. And you don't need to be a firefighter to understand that fire causes visible fire or visible smoke or heat that breaks windows or soot around those windows.
It sounds to me like your trying to say that the smoke coming from WTC7 was actually from a different building, so you're already off to a bad start.
You obviously jumped into the discussion without reading what was said before. ...bad start.
