FOIA WTC-7 Video. No Question: MASSIVE FIRES!

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Perhaps you can explain why, as a Brit, every one of your last 250 posts is a passionate defense of a very implausible official story? It seems that's how you spend most of your time.

Sure. Firstly, I don't find the 'official story' to be implausible. Second, the last couple days are the first time I have posted in about 10 months on here as I get tired of the endless repetition sooner or later.

A bit obsessed with 9/11, wouldn't you say?

Not really, I often have to do a bunch of computing which takes a while to complete, which gives me plenty of time to drink, smoke and read forums. This is simply one of them.

BTW, what sort of "analysis" are you involved in that involves intimate knowledge of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Ironically you are wrong here too. I have a pretty good knowledge of the NIST reports, not the 911 Commission. Still, I have some experience in technical analysis, this includes lots of areas including engineering, minor electronics, lots of computing etc. It's really not very interesting and frankly I value my privacy.

The video footage just tells me what I know, that there was a fire in the building. It does not explain how or why WTC 7 collapsed the way it did. As for convincing me that the fires brought that building down....not even. I am no structural engineer, but all you have to do is compare it to another example of a building brought down by controlled demolition, and the history of fire itself on buildings and structures to disprove the OS the government wants us to believe.

DID anyone listen to 4:41 in the video??? Why do we hear a high volocity explosion? Sounds like an explosive to me...

Originally posted by exponent

BTW, what sort of "analysis" are you involved in that involves intimate knowledge of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Ironically you are wrong here too. I have a pretty good knowledge of the NIST reports, not the 911 Commission. Still, I have some experience in technical analysis, this includes lots of areas including engineering, minor electronics, lots of computing etc. It's really not very interesting and frankly I value my privacy.

Don't mean to intrude on your privacy, but I still find it a bit odd that you have such an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure 9/11 details and the NIST report.

Would your area of expertise by any chance be failure analysis?

Exponent has been involved in the investigations of many well known incidents including... the September 11 attacks...

The Federal Emergency Management Agency also hired Exponent to examine the Oklahoma City bombing damage aftermath, specifically the damage to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.[3] NASA hired Exponent in 1986 to determine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In 2003, Exponent was hired by the U.S. government to investigate the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.[4]

According to the Los Angeles Times, "Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."

...In 2009, the Amazon Defense Coalition criticized an Exponent study commissioned by the energy company Chevron that dumping oil waste didn't cause cancer because Chevron's largest shareholder was a director on Exponent's board.[3] Exponent "doubted" the director knew of the study.[3] Controversially, Exponent research argued that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer.[3][4] The firm was also criticized for assisting industry efforts to reduce chromium regulation.[5]

Again, not to pry, but don't you feel proper disclosure is in order for anyone who so vehemently and passionately defends what many Americans have serious questions about?

Cheers!

reply to post by tezzajw

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely. There were no casualties associated with

Fires were seen on some 13 floors of WTC 7 - thats 13 out of 47 floors on fire during the day.

The most intense of the fires were between 10 & 13 floors - it was in this area that the bulge in the building was
seen. It was here that the the column failed triggering the collapse

Originally posted by thedman
Fires were seen on some 13 floors of WTC 7 - thats 13 out of 47 floors on fire during the day.

Then why did Six Sigma make the following claim?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What this video also proves is at least 19 floors of this building were on fire.

Six Sigma, your claim is at odds with thedman. Why is it that both of you official story believers contradict each other with regards to the number of floors that were on fire?

Six Sigma, you have already conceded that you don't know how long the fires were burning. Will you also concede that you don't know how many floors were on fire? thedman isn't exactly leaping to your defence when you claim that there were at least 19 floors on fire.

Fire alone does not result in the symmetrical collapse of a building.

Please give me one example of a building that collapsed completely because of fire.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
ANOK... didn't you make the claim that the massive amounts of smoke were not from WTC-7... but from dust?

Yup... that was you:

Actually one picture that was claimed to be smoke was dust from WTC 1. I made a thread about it and posted ALL the pics that showed the 'smoke' was the same as the dust. Can't find the thread with all these changes. But does it really make a difference if I'm wrong? Does it suddenly make all four outer walls of WTC 7 sitting on top of the debris pile wrong also?

Just to make you happy I'll concede and say OK yes it was smoke from WTC 7. I'll even go ahead and say the fires were MASSIVE, HUGE, hottest fires EVER, the building DIDN'T collapse at free-fall speed, it bulged with massive thermal expansion, it leaned to the west, to the left, to the right, and was shaken all about, if it makes you happy.

You know what though? IT DOESN'T MATTER, none of that stuff changes the fact that all four outer walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile. Undeniable. One day you'll figure this out bud.

Go ahead dude, do your best discrediting of me, see if it makes any difference. Anything to avoid addressing the actual facts presented. You're desperate.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I think its hilarious people can look at the pictures in your post and compare the skeletal 'still standing' steel frames of buildings smoldering for up to 24 hrs and then see a picture of wtc7 and argue that its not a fair analysis because one set of pics were taken at night and the others in the day. LOLOL

Their only purpose is to confuse and derail, or perhaps they need to repeat their incomprehensible logic over and over to cement the lie in their own mind.

If you still beleive fire and poor architechtural foresight was the cause for wtc 7's collapse you are kidding yourself. I honestly don't beleive those arguing that point in this thread actually beleive it. I think they have other reasons for propounding such preposterous nonsense.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
The following video puts to rest the claims that there were only "small fires" at WTC-7. As you will see there is amazing footage of the damages, fires, and smoke. At around the 5:15 mark of the video you can see that there is a massive amount of smoke billowing out of approximately 15 story's. The camera man zooms in on the fires and shows the incredible intensity.

Well,
you should have studied your own vid a little more closely, right at the end the reporter states that an explosion set all the cars in the street alight. Add to this, that damage is CLEARLY resultant from detonations of some type.

The fact that the windows are blown out (in rows on a floor) also shows that large detonations had gone off in the building and surronding areas.

Your vid is excellent proof that a fire did not do all that damage, but bombs did, many bombs.

So, explain to everyone how this is possible please? How did the 'alleged terrorists', (yes alleged because nothing has been put to trial, to test the evidence in a court of law and proven) how did these alleged terrorists plant all the bombs here?

How did they plant the bombs in WTC1 and WTC2?

Before you trot out your rebuttal, I must remind you that official recordings made that day, (of people stuck in the buildings) released under the FOI, have firemen and citizens phoning to say bombs were going off in the buildings, and all these calls were after the fact of the planes hitting WTC1 & 2.

So how did the 'terrorists' pull that off?

People seem to forget that WTC7 was the newest building to fall, it was only 14 years old when it went down in 2001. I find it strange that it's fire suppression system or sprinkler system failed to activate to douse the fires that we do see burning. Or was it because the material that was burning that came over from WTC 1 & 2 was unable to be put out by water alone?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

People seem to forget that WTC7 was the newest building to fall, it was only 14 years old when it went down in 2001. I find it strange that it's fire suppression system or sprinkler system failed to activate to douse the fires that we do see burning. Or was it because the material that was burning that came over from WTC 1 & 2 was unable to be put out by water alone?

Reason was no water was that collapse of Towers 1 & 2 cut the mains supplying it. Some water for the sprinklers on top floors came from rooftop tank, but was quickly exhausted. Standpipes which supply water for
firefighting on each floors were dry. One of first things FD will do responding to commercial building is to
put pumper on sprinklers/standpipes to pump water from hydrant into system to boost flow and pressure to
upper floors. With no water can not pump into sprinkler systems

Here is account of water supply problems

FDNY Capt Chris Boyle

There was an engine company... 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.

More by Capt Boyle

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I'm standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we'll go in, we’ll see.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Don't mean to intrude on your privacy, but I still find it a bit odd that you have such an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure 9/11 details and the NIST report.

Would your area of expertise by any chance be failure analysis?

Not exactly, but would I be silly enough to put a company name as my name if I was concerned about privacy? I have such knowledge because I have a good memory for facts and things of this nature, it's why I am good at my job

Again, not to pry, but don't you feel proper disclosure is in order for anyone who so vehemently and passionately defends what many Americans have serious questions about?

I don't see why. If I was hitler it wouldn't change that what I am saying is true and can be verified independently. I don't make any claims here that rely soley on my knowledge, perhaps I correct some people who get things wrong that I understand, but it is not like this cannot be verified by talking to a licensed engineer.

Anyway I will answer any questions you like about 911 or my understanding of it, but I do value my privacy because people who have given out their names have had some rather tedious repercussions from it. Ask 'gravy' from JREF

Originally posted by exponent
Not exactly, but would I be silly enough to put a company name as my name if I was concerned about privacy?

Not unless you never imagined that someone would connect the dots and Google an obscure company name that very few people have ever heard of and that's doubly difficult because it's also a word.

Originally posted by exponent
I have such knowledge because I have a good memory for facts and things of this nature, it's why I am good at my job

I've encountered many pros during my years on the boards -- IMO, you're one of the best.

Unfortunately, so am I.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Not unless you never imagined that someone would connect the dots and Google an obscure company name that very few people have ever heard of and that's doubly difficult because it's also a word.

Aww I feel almost bad for you breaking this news. Originally my nick was "e^n", but some forums can't handle the caret, so this is my alternate nick

I've encountered many pros during my years on the boards -- IMO, you're one of the best.

Unfortunately, so am I.

Another veiled compliment I thank you.

If you want to try a formal debate, I'll accept one about most WTC topics, I can also do creationism and moon landings, but I am not too hot on JFK. I have that 1600 page epic book but I have just not had the time to read it.

Originally posted by exponent
If you want to try a formal debate, I'll accept one about most WTC topics, I can also do creationism and moon landings, but I am not too hot on JFK. I have that 1600 page epic book but I have just not had the time to read it.

Thanks, but I already spend too much time on ATS and sponsors are tough in this economy.

1600 pages? Here, accept a parting gift. The original Rolling Stone article disappeared.

reply to post by Titan Uranus


Would you also find this hilarious ? The main reason the Windsor Tower did not suffer total collapse was because of the concrete reinforced core and the 'technical floors' that were reinforced concrete also .

And , let's not forget , they were also pumping water onto it . Hmmm , that might make a big difference , ya think ?

And now , let's all take a look at what the Windsor REALLY looked like after it was all said and done ...

www.911myths.com...

You guys see all that steel that collapsed DUE TO FIRE ???

Do you guys also see that the collapse was contained by the thick concrete reinforced floor and the visible concrete reinforced core ?

Or , will all of you deny what is staring you in the face . I didn't make this stuff up people , look at the evidence .After you are finished denying the pictoral proof that a steel structure can and will collapse due to fire , please read the link and try to comprehend the differences in construction .

And , please be adults and don't come back with the lame argument that the Windsor did not suffer total collapse , as I have already conceded that much . But , don't just ignore the fact that I have also provided evidence as to WHY it didn't suffer total collapse .

That section of the Windsor that collapsed , was constructed of nothing but structural steel .

PROVING , that structural steel buildings can , has , and will , collapse due to fires .

Can I get any intelligent replies to this , or will it be the same old "Jesus said it , I beleive it , and that settles it " ?

reply to post by okbmd


Tell yourself what you need to. Look at the Windsor inferno and then look at wt7 as it collapses. You don't want intelligent replies for you want replies that allow you to remain in fantasy land. If wtc7 was an inferno and crumbled to the ground I wouldn't question it. It wasn't an inferno and it fell like a sack of potatoes, gimme a break dude.