WTC 7 revisited...

I know some of you have probably seen these pics before, but for those that haven't I thought I'd post them.

A series of high quality pics showing the towers central core still standing, which is interesting in itself as it turns to dust right in front of your eyes.

But the one I want you to focus on is the last one, the famous pic that de-bunkers claim is smoke from the WTC7 fires.
This series of pics shows you that the 'smoke' is in fact obviously the dust from the second towers collapse.

*Warning large pics.






Now for the one showing building 7. Note the same smoke/dust as the other pics, clearly showing this was not smoke from WTC7.



Source for images

[edit on 24/7/2007 by ANOK]

Hmmmmm where are all you de-bunkers now? I can't believe you've got nothing to say on this? C'mon, try telling me now that that is smoke from WTC 7.

Ill tell you why im not interested, because you have one point of view instead of an open mind.
Im just as curious as you are on the 9/11 attacks however a lot of the things you argue lacks 100% proof. So maybe you are wrong on a few things but you will never figure it out because you are so set in your ways.

Actually I would love to debate 9/11 but its guys like you trying to ram your ideas into me that makes it difficult.




[edit on 25-7-2007 by earth2]

I am still of the belief that its not all that it appears to be.

However, there is lots of evidence that the debris from 1 & 2 fell onto and into WTC 7 and that building 7 was damaged enough that the NYFD pulled one of the walls down to collapse the rest of the building.

This is a clip of WTC 7 from NBC that day showing fires inside the building. Now, is it possible that those fires were set?

Originally posted by earth2
Ill tell you why im not interested, because you have one point of view instead of an open mind.

Just because I can see the obvious and not scared to voice my opinion doesn't mean I'm not open minded. But anyway it's not about me, it's about WTC 7.

That is NOT smoke from WTC7, you can clearly see that, does that make me closed minded? I don't think so...

Originally posted by Intheshadwos
However, there is lots of evidence that the debris from 1 & 2 fell onto and into WTC 7 and that building 7 was damaged enough that the NYFD pulled one of the walls down to collapse the rest of the building,

I'm not denying there were fires, just not to the extent some people want to believe. There has been an ongoing argument over whether the smoke in the pic I posted was from WTC 7 or not. With this series of pics I posted it's pretty obvious it was dust from the collapse of WTC 1.

Did you guys even look at those pics?

There is no evidence that firefighters pulled one of the walls. Where did you hear that? You only have to look at the building collapsing to clearly see that it collapses straight down into it's footprint. If one of the walls had been pulled we would see that in the vid, no? And it would not have fallen the way it did, otherwise why would people bother using explosives to do the job in a controlled way. All they would have to do is light a few fires and wait, or just pull one of the walls.

[edit on 25/7/2007 by ANOK]

Perhaps instead of your tinfoil babblings will read this:

FDNY personnel reported huge gash ripped in south wall of WTC 7, building
caught fire from burning debris from North Tower which greated hole.

Firehouse: Were you watching 7 World Trade Center?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we?re heading east on Vesey, we couldn?t see much past Broadway. We couldn?t see Church Street. We couldn?t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.

Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn?t see much that was going on. I didn?t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.

We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we?ll go down, let?s see what?s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what?s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn?t look good.

www.firehouse.com...

From picture can see entire floors fully involved - Capt Boyle reports no
water pressure in area to fight fires (collapse of towers cut mains). If
you read reaminder of account (can't post because too long) will find
out the FDNY chiefs ordered personnel to leave WTC 7. Building was too
heavily damaged and fires too extensive to fight.

if the fires were started by debris falling on WTC 7...then there is no way that the smoke was from the fire as the towers were falling....whoever said it was must not have been that smart....

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
Author(s): "Winston Smith" of Studyof911.com aka wecomeinpeace

For your reading pleasure. This showed that it was impossible pretty much for WT 7 to fall on its own and was improbable for it to have even fallen like that.

Have a nice day.

BTW Anok You are cool.. Thought you should know that.

::EDIT::

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked
Link above is to an ATS post about it. but site has updated info on things that were found out after release of ATS thread.

[edit on 7/25/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by thedman
Perhaps instead of your tinfoil babblings will read this:

Typical de-bunker reply starting with an insult...

Where are the pics of the building fully engulfed in fire? I have yet to see them. Where are the pics of this huge gash? But so what if there was a 'huge gash? It's impossible for a building to collapse straight down into it's own footprint from damage to one side of the building. That argument is stupid, go take some physics classes or something.
WTC5 and 6 had way more damage than 7 and they remained standing, having only partial collapses which is what would be expected.

How can you compare building 7 and 6/5 and not see something doesn't add up with 7?

But the thread is about the smoke/dust that people think came from WTC7
I don't care what any witness said, the pictures speak for themselves, the smoke you see is NOT from WTC7.
That was the only point of this thread, to put that argument to rest which these pics clearly do.


Hehe thanx ThickHeaded, back at ya mate!

I noticed on that post I put up..

they talk about OKC, there was one support column standing and most of the building was standing pretty much. So even if there was a big ass hole in WT 7 it should have fallen half assed like the building in OKC.

THat would be my take or it would have fallen over which I would highly doubt since that is a steel structure not a concrete on..

Where quote is from

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Spoodily
The entire center of the Oklahoma City building was blown out and the building stayed standing, and it was WAY more damaged than #7.

So right you are. Do you really want to get me started on this again? The Murrah Building had one column that remained intact. This is verified by the same people who cleaned it up...CDI. BTW, CDI cleaned up WTC 7 and now they are employed by NIST to "find the truth if there were explosives". Come on. I contacted CDI before and they were a little loose in telling me that getting into the business was pretty much harder than getting into the mob (I have a copy of the e-mail if anyone is interested). Not in the exact words, but from what I understood what they said, it was either family, know someone, or both. That's it. Sounds pretty mob run to me. Anyway, I'm straying from topic.

That argument is stupid, go take some physics classes or something.

Have 20 years experience in fire fighting - as far as classes attended
seminar given by FDNY personnel who were in charge of operations
at the scene . Know many people who were at the scene fighting the fires
in buildings around WTC site.

WTC 5 and 6 were 9 story buildings, WTC 7 was 47 story, also 7 was
built over Con Ed electrical station. To do this required cantilever truss
spanning the station, in addition the vertical support columns were under
great stress. Loss of even 1 or 2 columns would compromise stability of
building. This was before the fires began to weaken the structure even
more. FDNY chiefs recognized that the building was unstable and not
to risk more personnel trying to save. When the building began to bulge
in the afternoon decided to clear collapse zone around it. Was sitting in
my firehouse listening to radio traffic from scene when heard orders
being passed to clear area around 7 because of anticipated collapse.

So what is your experience in fire fighting, building construction?

Man those are some giant pics Anok. Your point is well taken, the smoke that was attributed to WTC7's fires was allready there just after the collapse of one of the towers.

The OKC bombing is a good comparison, that building was 1/4 blown up and still stood there until demolished.

WTC7 quite a mystery!

Originally posted by thedman

So what is your experience in fire fighting, building construction?

Actually I believe the person I quoted about OKC is a structural engineer.

Also I have asked firefighters paid and VFD a question which none can answer.
"whats it take to bring down tall building?"

Next in line is the fact that the NYT acquired about 15,000 eyewitness accounts from FDNY, NYPD, and EMS from that day and some have stated about there being explosions being in the building.

Next on the list WT 7 was only stated to be on fire around 3pm est or something after that. So what you are telling me it took 2 hrs for the fires from some diesel fuel to bring down WT 7?

So why don't we get on this why WT 7 collapsed thing again.

[edit on 7/25/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by thedman
So what is your experience in fire fighting, building construction?

Firefighting has nothing to do with it, neither does construction. It is physically impossible for a building to fall with all 4 corners at the same time unless all the columns failed at the same time. The ONLY way that could happen is with controlled explosives. If the collapse was caused by fire what caused the columns to telescope down on themselves? Steel when heated up enough to fail will bend, buckle, not snap. Also office fires are no where near hot enough to heat construction steel to failure, you should know that if you are a firefighter as you claim.

Physics my friend...

You all use the jet fuel to explain the towers fires getting hot enough, even though that's BS also, how do explain WTC7 fires getting hot enough to cause steel to fail?

Also if you know construction you'd realise the size of the building means nothing. You think they use the same columns in 7 as they did in 6 or 5?
Every building is designed to hold it's weight + some. Don't know about 7 but the towers were designed to hold 5 times their own weight.

So just because 7 is 47 stories and the others were less doesn't change the physics. There is NO precedent for this happening, so how you all can say the fires did it I can't figure out...

How many buildings have you seen fall like 7 did from fires and asymmetrical damage?

But having said that why don't all just admit that the smoke you see is not from WTC7, the point of this thread, and your so called proof that 7 was a raging inferno?...So far you are all ignoring the actual topic.

ThickHeaded mentioned the diesel fuel.

Almost all the diesel fuel was recovered...

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Source

So the diesel fuel had no significant effect on the fire obviously.

WTC 7 was designed to stop the spread of fire by compartmentalization…

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.



A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.

So how did the fires manage to engulf the whole building? If you put this together with the images we have of the building, logic should tell you the fires were not raging as we are led to believe.

No planes to 'knock off' the fireproofing, no plane impact to sever columns...lol

WTC 7, 6.5 seconds into its collapse. Where are the raging fires?


Edited to add image...

[edit on 25/7/2007 by ANOK]

The vertical compartment system works only as long as the building
structure is intact - the debris impact from North Tower penetrated
1/4 into the building. It managed to eject two elevator cars from their
shafts on the 8 & 9 floors. Also a condition known as "auto exposure"
where heat causes the floor supports to warp and sag pulling the floor
down and cracking the concrete. Heat is able to penetrate the floor
above and ignite the carpeting. Happened during the Meridan Plaza
fire in Philadephia in 1990 - fire extended up for 10 floors. The fires
were started by the debris and began slowly, but with no water to operate
the sprinklers or fight the fires spread rapidly. By afternoon several
floors were fully involved - look at picture posted earlier. Can see
several floors on fire and this shot is of the undamaged north face of
building. I've seen several buildings collapse do to fire - none had been
damaged before fire like WTC 7.

Originally posted by thedman
The vertical compartment system works only as long as the building
structure is intact - the debris impact from North Tower penetrated
1/4 into the building.

There is no proof there was significant damage to 7. Where do you get that the damage penetrated 1/4 into the building?

Still office fires DO NOT get hot enough to cause global collapse, sry.
Not sure what buildings you've seen collapse from fire as no steel structure has EVER collapsed from fire.

How do explain other building with far more damage not collapsing to their basements?

Sry but the collapse of 7 was way to symmetrical and clean and quick to have been caused by fire, no matter how much it was damaged.

WTC 7, major CD. I mean look at the OKC bombing, that building blew up but did it fall? No it did not. Sorry office fires don't make entire buildings fall perfect in a foot print. Still, its going to be a JFK conspiracy theory-Zapruder Film, Back and to the Left.

Love NIST just explains it as a floor somehow went bent of out of shape and that made the building just fall perfect. Remember the excuse that the fires and a big chunk of the building was carved out? And that made WTC 7 in CD like collapse.