WTC 7 Trivia

reply to post by thedman


I have a Thread on WTC5 on board currently

(dont know how to link in a post , my thread )

That was a engulfing fire , hit by 2 falling towers and a hull of

a plane .

DIDN'T COLLAPSE

reply to post by thedman


yes, big fires have big smoke... but the color of the smoke tells a different story. care to elaborate, sure.... the smoke is heavy. its dark.... which is interesting since its burning what...? cellulose....
but the smoke is more of a lets say Diesel - and that was quickly followed by the emergency Diesel Fuel Tank... ok, who spec'd this diesel tank... oh, it was spec'd through the roof... good luck on saying it was a diesel tank fire.... who ruptured the tank??? it could have been placed in a burning fire and still have no effect... it was a supersafe tank with fire ratings... the whole nine yards....

oh, I dont care which side you look at.... the one that is still cold steel is not going to come down without explosives.. and I have not been shown a demonstration of a natural collapse of a steel framed building as we have to use explosives to bring those down. show me a 360 degree inferno that collapsed say after burning 19 hours. thats right they dont even fall down after being burnt to a crisp. if you want me to even consider your input slightly valid your going to have do alot better.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

Originally posted by thedman
pulling the same old trick - showing NORTH face (which was not hit by WTC 1) Fires took some time to develop on that side.

I showed the fires from TWO faces of the building, which also happens to be the extent of all the fire you could see in the building aside from a little on the West face.

How about the SOUTH face where majority of fire was ?

Why don't YOU show some actual fire on the South face?

All you can see is smoke, and not all of that smoke is coming from WTC7. It is also coming from WTC5, WTC6, WTC4, and from the still-smoldering and burning rubble piles of the Twin Towers that were immediately behind WTC7, and for which WTC7 was effectively acting as a big wind shield until the smoke rose to the level of the top of the building.

There were fires on 12 floors of WTC 7

Out of 47, and that isn't even 12 whole floors.

Look at clips 4 thru 8 - see the smoke pouring out of multiple floors
indicating serious fires there

Look:




See all that smoke pouring out of the building?

You can also see FLAMES.

That building was right behind WTC7, literally across the street from it, though the street itself was covered with debris at this point.

Where do you think that smoke is going? Also behind WTC7.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Judging the volume of smoke I see in your picture, to BBC footage
www.youtube.com...
very simular - can you map out locations of buildings and using the bbc footage wind direction of smoke according to the map should be interesting. if what you are saying is true, then both your building on fire and wtc7 should line up. with the angle on bbc. I await your findings. also do you have time for your photo. we know the by bbc broadcast time.


Subject contained in previous post in this thread:
Diesel was mentioned as the color of the smoke, in addition - carpet, foam seating also burn dark and are highly probable.
tks. Anonn. Researcher for once again pointing at the obvious.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Anti-Evil]

reply to post by Anti-Evil


I can't watch YouTube videos at the moment but here are the buildings:




You can see WTC5 and WTC6 both across the street behind WTC7.


Here is a photo looking down Greenwich Street with WTC7 on the right and WTC5 in the background on the left before its fires developed like they are seen in Steve Spak photos and FEMA's photos:





Here you see a lot of smoke pouring out of WTC6 and blowing over towards WTC5 and behind WTC7:




You can also see there is still smoke coming off of the WTC1 debris pile as well, as it would be for months:


















[edit on 29-12-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Since you haven't been to many large fires will enlighten you

Dark smoke indicates carbon rich fuel source

Much of modern building furnishings are made of plastic - plastics are
derived from petroleum. Plastics also burn with some 50-100% more heat energy than organic (wood, paper, cloth) - 12,000 - 16,500 btu/lb vs
8000-8500 btu

Plastics are everywhere in modern building - carpets are nylon, chairs are
made with urethene foam padding, cubicles are built with styrafoam or
urethen foam cores, desks are particle board bound with synthetic glue

Should I go on?

we are saying the same thing.... diesel is a HYDRO CARBON.

Originally posted by thedman
Dark smoke indicates carbon rich fuel source

It also indicates high carbon content (hydrocarbons) in the smoke itself, did you know that? That's also what "soot" is, and it's in the smoke.

The reason it's in the smoke is because it didn't combust. Hydrocarbon combustion is where the heat energy comes from in a hydrocarbon fire.

So based on that simple fact it should be obvious that hydrocarbons escaping combustion and floating away in the smoke represent an uncombusted fuel source, and potential heat energy that was not used.


When the smoke is dark, and the source and smoke is fuel-rich, it doesn't necessarily mean the fire is producing more heat (that would only be the case if there were more fire/combustion happening over-all). The only thing it means is that the smoke is sooty and it isn't burning all the carbon that's in the fuel. That is actually an inefficient reaction as far as trying to produce the maximum amount of heat from the fuel source. If the fire was of maximum efficiency as far as converting all the fuel into pure heat energy, there would be no smoke at all. But realistically that does not happen with these kinds of fires. The next closest thing is light-colored smoke, white or gray, which indicates low carbon content in the smoke.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Anti-Evil

 

you silly people ask the wrong questions. the one that should be asked is: "could any demolition company/expert have made a building identical to WTC7 fall any better than it did?"

Find an answer to that, and you will still never get the truth, but you will have a right to have that smug smile.

Well, considering that all buildings generally fall the same way, down, you can now find a new reason for your smug smile.

I guess these guys didn't get the message. It must suck to think yourself so right and then find out you were so wrong.