Hurricane Angel said:
Gronk finds data interesting - but Gronk not patriot. Gronk suppose he want best for American people - like he want best for all people, Gronk suppose - but Gronk merely self-serving academian. Gronk return to Gronk's own homeland in Gronk's own good time.
But flabby see-though building scale suggest other buildings NE of fire also taken out, and that all buildings close in. This so, or Gronk making unjustified generalizations? Why remove other buildings close by if also NE of WTC1 and WTC2? Fire not able to reach?
Geoff
Was WTC 6 on FIre ?
ill say it again,why would you put out a building fire with explosives,in new york city,during a terrorist attack?[and that buuilding just happened to have the cities emergency managment bunker in it]
and why has no other building ever been put out this way before or since?
and how come the oklahoma city building didnt fall down even thou it was blown in half and on fire?
and why has no other building ever been put out this way before or since?
and how come the oklahoma city building didnt fall down even thou it was blown in half and on fire?
Here you go leopold, just ctrl-f "signal";
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm
And Geoff, you wanted wind data, I gave you wind data supporting my point.. But Geoff you didn't actually expect someone would actually try and guess the wind direction, am I right Geoff? Well the thought never crossed my mind, but I imagined the smoke would be a good indicator. Lo and behold it was blowing opposite WTC 7, and yet only after I had said that, it became clear that it wasn't good enough, even though you just asked for such indicator. Take a good look at the neighbourhood;
Leopold I'm curious as to what your comments are about the investigation after the attacks.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm
And Geoff, you wanted wind data, I gave you wind data supporting my point.. But Geoff you didn't actually expect someone would actually try and guess the wind direction, am I right Geoff? Well the thought never crossed my mind, but I imagined the smoke would be a good indicator. Lo and behold it was blowing opposite WTC 7, and yet only after I had said that, it became clear that it wasn't good enough, even though you just asked for such indicator. Take a good look at the neighbourhood;
Leopold I'm curious as to what your comments are about the investigation after the attacks.
leopold99 said:
compare the above quote from fema with this from nist
The fire alarm system in WTC 7 sent only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) to the monitoring company indicating a fire condition.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm
it doesn't take much inelligence on my part to say that one of these government agencies is lying
i do know you dont lay dynamite and explosives in a building thats on fire,during a terrorist attack,in a heavily populated area,thats just so fucking stupid its beyond reason.if you have the man power to set hundreds of explosives in a building thats on fire in under a few hours[near impossible under normal circumstances i might add],you just put the fire out instead,duh.
and the inconsistancies with reports are proof positive of a text book conspiricy[which is just two or more people lying about a crime i might add,to all you anti-conspricy nuts out there]
and the inconsistancies with reports are proof positive of a text book conspiricy[which is just two or more people lying about a crime i might add,to all you anti-conspricy nuts out there]
Last edited:
Hurricane Angel said:
Hurr, don't start casting about aspersions, me boyo. I expected someone would indeed judge the wind direction, and if I was wrong, so be it. Don't start accusing me. That's enough. I was wrong, the wind direction was not in favour of fire spreading in that direction. Mea culpa.
Here's how that still doesn't help.
WTC7 was burning - we've both stipulated to that. When the tower comes down, it's trailing smoke. It's clearing burning in the upper levels. And we both know that fire does indeed spread upwind as well as down. Now if you want to say that it was set on fire deliberately or something, so be it. But the fact of the matter is that it was on fire. There was an alarm, and whether or not the comp logs it, you can still see the smoke coming down as it does. Ergo, it was burning.
This places us back in the initial spot: WHY did it come down? Demo for objective reasons or insurance scam or secret evil conspiracy of Martian Jewish Lizardoids? My bet, frankly, is still on one of the first two, and I've already outlined why.
So - the tower was burning and it was probably demo'ed. That's my opinion on what I've seen so far.
I can understand your frustration, but don't start accusing me.
Geoff
PS: That pic is excellent, and I thank you for taking the time to post it.
BUT: again, look how damn close WTC7 is to 5 and 6, which were also damaged. (Were they demo'ed or burned down? No idea.) They went bye-bye. Why not 7 too? That's pretty damn close. Granted: Post Office not taken down, but that's kind of impeding on a separate area (the untouchable postal system) and...Verizon. (Suspicious? Where are my carrier dollars going?)
The trend is my friend, my friend.
Geoff
BUT: again, look how damn close WTC7 is to 5 and 6, which were also damaged. (Were they demo'ed or burned down? No idea.) They went bye-bye. Why not 7 too? That's pretty damn close. Granted: Post Office not taken down, but that's kind of impeding on a separate area (the untouchable postal system) and...Verizon. (Suspicious? Where are my carrier dollars going?)
The trend is my friend, my friend.
Geoff
The following indicates cutter charges were used to bring down WTC 2 , I ahve some links that might be of interest here . All 3 sources below are from different newsources I have collected over the years they all pertain to some form of explosion from within .
Below is a video of an interesting talk from brave New York firefighters about the explosions .
"Floor by floor it started popping out."
"It was if they had detonators and they planned to take down a building."
Fire House Discussion 9/11 video link
Brian Foley said:
Dosent the man standing near the camera says something about "I saw the shadow and started running",
Can U explain that, I had seen the video long time back so I may be wrong.
Yes and they took alot more physical damage, but no collapse. They were demolished months after the attacks as part of the rebuilding process. Anyways, I had posted that wind direction data (yes in frustration) because there's the prevailing idea that 7 WTC had taken much damage. In every picture of WTC 7 during the attacks we see no damage in its exterior facade.
Now yes I'm stipulating that the fires were deliberate, because (and these were recent discoveries by myself) the fire log seems to have gone off at 10:00AM and the south tower hadn't even collapsed yet. That is my main argument to the fires being deliberate. If the fires were indeed deliberate, then it proves a slight "mistiming" because someone expected the south tower to fall very very soon.
Now yes I'm stipulating that the fires were deliberate, because (and these were recent discoveries by myself) the fire log seems to have gone off at 10:00AM and the south tower hadn't even collapsed yet. That is my main argument to the fires being deliberate. If the fires were indeed deliberate, then it proves a slight "mistiming" because someone expected the south tower to fall very very soon.
But couldn't WTC 7 be on fire from jet fuel etc scattered around? Why would it have to be on fire only after the south tower collapsed.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and speculate about the 'timing' of putatively 'deliberate' fires. We're ignoring the scientific method by doing so.
As for Foley's comments - why would someone plant bombs on the 62nd-70th floors? It makes no sense, if you're trying to knock down the building. The second comment also doesn't apply, as no one would plant explosives on every floor either. As for the "light sources", it's far more likely to have been fire or electric equipment shorting. Kinetic energy is a funny thing. And as for the firefighters - I draw the reader's attention to the phrase "It was as if they had detonators..." AS IF, describing how the pressure and momentum popped building floors out.
Geoff
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and speculate about the 'timing' of putatively 'deliberate' fires. We're ignoring the scientific method by doing so.
As for Foley's comments - why would someone plant bombs on the 62nd-70th floors? It makes no sense, if you're trying to knock down the building. The second comment also doesn't apply, as no one would plant explosives on every floor either. As for the "light sources", it's far more likely to have been fire or electric equipment shorting. Kinetic energy is a funny thing. And as for the firefighters - I draw the reader's attention to the phrase "It was as if they had detonators..." AS IF, describing how the pressure and momentum popped building floors out.
Geoff
Let us not indeed get ahead of ourselves!
Imagine having a large bucket of burning jet fuel, and throwing it off a building. Would it survive to reach the bottom? Probably, but enough to start a serious fire in a busy business office?
Moreover, how does this jet fuel get inside the building. If a piece of wreckage were to compromise the facade, and then this magical jet fuel hits the bullseye, how likely is that Geoff?
Let's consider the odds of 1) the burning jet fuel not burning after about 10 seconds of freefall (remember how water spreads when you splash it, that would increase its surface area by a hell of a lot), 2) a piece of wreckage followed by burning jet fuel in the same place, and 3) nobody in the office grabbing an extinguisher and putting the fire out.
As a pre-emptive response to your 2) response, "but what about a burning seat cover". Well, the only flammable materials inside a plane are soft, right? I can't conceive of something hard enough to break skyscraper windows, but remain on fire.
Imagine having a large bucket of burning jet fuel, and throwing it off a building. Would it survive to reach the bottom? Probably, but enough to start a serious fire in a busy business office?
Moreover, how does this jet fuel get inside the building. If a piece of wreckage were to compromise the facade, and then this magical jet fuel hits the bullseye, how likely is that Geoff?
Let's consider the odds of 1) the burning jet fuel not burning after about 10 seconds of freefall (remember how water spreads when you splash it, that would increase its surface area by a hell of a lot), 2) a piece of wreckage followed by burning jet fuel in the same place, and 3) nobody in the office grabbing an extinguisher and putting the fire out.
As a pre-emptive response to your 2) response, "but what about a burning seat cover". Well, the only flammable materials inside a plane are soft, right? I can't conceive of something hard enough to break skyscraper windows, but remain on fire.
This image shows voilent explosions pushing things horizontally out of WTC.
Last edited:
look how far WTC 7 is
Here are all the details we needed in this thread
http://wtc7.batcave.net/
We can even see the missiles that did the damage.
Here are all the details we needed in this thread
http://wtc7.batcave.net/
We can even see the missiles that did the damage.
Singularity you're not helping me convert Geoff, you're making "us" look crazy.