sheeples guide to WTC7

[marky 54]

is this what NIST will say to?

if you watch this clip it trys to explain wtc7 collapse and you'll notice it gives almost the same reason as the towers

debris from wtc 1 and 2 collapse knocked of fireproofing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVSxeJH_RCY

worth a watch to prepare yourself for the bull that NIST will release i just know it will be the same as this.

[Jerry]

Nice post, still disturbs me that these so called educated people try and propose the proposterous.

Bye the bye, have you seen my recent post titled WTC 7?

Regards Jerry.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Anybody want to test their Italian?

This is a segment from an Italian debating show called "Matrix". The clip precedes a discussion about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7; Note the comparison between WTC7 and a controlled demolition ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

[malcks]

another load of bull about fires!!

[QuitTheirClogs]

Building 7 “Debunking” Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

I’ve been directed to this video as it purports to debunk the controlled demolition claims. I can’t believe that it’s just been discovered. It must have done the rounds before.

To me, it doesn’t show anything that I didn’t already know; i.e.

1) Isolated fires on a few floors

2) Smoke in front of the south face, most of which probably came from the burning Buildings 5 and 6 which were across the street

3) Damage to the south-west corner

What do other people think of it?

[marky 54]

Building 7 “Debunking” Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

I’ve been directed to this video as it purports to debunk the controlled demolition claims. I can’t believe that it’s just been discovered. It must have done the rounds before.

To me, it doesn’t show anything that I didn’t already know; i.e.

1) Isolated fires on a few floors

2) Smoke in front of the south face, most of which probably came from the burning Buildings 5 and 6 which were across the street

3) Damage to the south-west corner

What do other people think of it?

its a video where you HAVE to rely heavily on what your being told.
he said they could'nt fight the fire with no water, then as it pans out in another clip they are spraying water on a nearby building.

theres lots of smoke but at times you cannot tell where it is coming from and any fire seen is on a few floors at most. he said you could clearly see the damage caused from the collapse of the towers and i was struggling to see anything other than smoke. play the video with no sound and its a differant story than the one painted by the voice over.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Thanks Marky. I can't believe people think this rubbish debunks anything. This is what I posted in reply:


It doesn't show anything that I didn't already know; i.e.

1) Isolated fires on a few floors

2) Smoke in front of the south face, most of which probably came from the burning Buildings 5 and 6 which were across the street

3) Damage to the south-west corner


The photograph showing the damage is of the south-west corner. NIST have photographs of the south-west corner damage in Appendix L. But no one is claiming that the south-west corner damage was responsible for the collapse. NIST have assumed 'possible' damage in the central area of the south face. This video does not show that damage.

It may be that this possible damage really was there, but no one seems able to produce photographic evidence of it. It then takes another leap of the imagination to assume that this possible damage severely affected critical columns. And then NIST are left trying to explain why asymmetrical damage would lead to symmetrical collapse.


Taking a few statements from the video:

Heavy fire was blowing out of at least twelve windows

Twelve windows (I counted about eight in that shot) is only a very small percentage

Other windows were popping

I see that the vast majority of windows remained intact

This video shows that WTC was fully involved in fire

No, it doesn't. It shows isolated fires on a few floors


Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics claims to have seen photos of the damage to the south face, but apparently the American public is not allowed to see them. This is Coburn being interviewed by Charles Goyette in Aug 2006.

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

Part2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

Charles Goyette (KFNX): http://www.1100kfnx.com/goyette.php

[DDD911]

I can't believe people think this rubbish debunks anything.

Absolutely crazy isn’t it, problem is people cannot grasp at the idea that you have to have total frame failure to replicate this, people think its normal that fire can cause such damage, hell I did for three years, well not with regards to WTC7 that was the first point I realised something was iffy, however many people watch WTC7 falling and think nothing more of it.

I think people need nice & easy and well explained reasons why the official story is so wrong, and focusing on the three building collapses is easily the way to go.

[marky 54]

it is not hard to see why people fall for it though, to people who have been dumbed down these explainations make perfect sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

monopoly to learn geography explains a lot!

[QuitTheirClogs]

Hello Ignatz – Three points:

1) The video is taken looking at the south-west corner of building 7. Now please select some nearby object (e.g. a cupboard) to represent that corner – and identify the corner, the south side and the west side. Watching the first few seconds of that clip you’ll see that west side nearest the corner is NOT on fire – except for a couple of isolated fires. Looking at the south side nearest the corner you’ll see smoke that looks like it’s pouring from building 7 windows – in horizontal lines. By reference to the cupboard, it should be obvious that we’ve looked at the same space but from two different directions – the west then the south. By looking at this space from the west we have concluded that it is not on fire, but in looking at it from the south we have concluded that it is on fire. I think the “not on fire” wins.

2) the smoke effect can often be seen on mountains where clouds are forced to rise at cliff faces. The cloud can sometimes look like it’s streaming from the rock itself. Watching that clip, it looks like there’s a fairly light breeze blowing south which catches the smoke as it reaches the corner. Hence it looks like it’s coming from Building 7. The horizontal lines are a good indication that the smoke is getting blown around in wind currents rather than coming directly from a fire. If it were coming directly from a fire, it would be very much closer to vertical.

3) there was a third point, but I’m not sure I could be arsed. It’s that you could have just asked me to explain the apparent anomaly – and that would have done. Have a nice day.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Ignatz – I’ve just had a look at some of your other posts and I find you’re a Critic. That would explain everything - massively self-deluding indeed !

[marky 54]

there is smoke coming out of wtc7, but i would certainly say the majority of it is being blown in the direction of wtc7 from across the street, which is then hugging wtc7 and moveing up the face of the building making the smoke look worse than it actual is from wtc7.

there is certainly not enough visible fire in any video or photo i see to justify smoke pouring from every floor of wtc 7 on one side of the building, especially when the vast majority of windows remain intact.

[scubadiver]

Anybody want to test their Italian?

This is a segment from an Italian debating show called "Matrix". The clip precedes a discussion about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7; Note the comparison between WTC7 and a controlled demolition ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

A friend of mine is half Italian. I've sent this clip to him to forward to family in Italy

[QuitTheirClogs]

It’s a video where you HAVE to rely heavily on what you’re being told.

He said they couldn’t fight the fire with no water, then as it pans out in another clip they are spraying water on a nearby building.

Thanks for spotting that Marky. I think it’s Building 6 the firefighter is directing water at. And it’s probable that this building was already a write-off by that stage – being right below the North Tower.

So the firefighters have choice – try to put out the few isolated fires in Building 7, or waste their time on Building 6. It shouldn’t have been a difficult choice, should it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

[Thermate]

Ignatz working hard tonight ...

[QuitTheirClogs]

There's no sign whatsoever of rising smoke.

Which demonstrates that the smoke has cooled.

i.e. it has not just come directly from a fire, because smoke that comes directly from a fire is usually hot.

Therefore, the fires are probably somewhere else.

[John White]

Ignatz has returned to critics corner

Ignatz: you know not to tie it on!

[Ignatz]

POST DELETED

Make your own thread in critics corner Ignatz!

JW

[scubadiver]

Anybody want to test their Italian?

This is a segment from an Italian debating show called "Matrix". The clip precedes a discussion about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7; Note the comparison between WTC7 and a controlled demolition ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

A friend of mine is half Italian. I've sent this clip to him to forward to family in Italy

My friend has got back to me about this clip and he says the commentators are denying it was a CD.

He also said this programme was shown on one of Berlusconi's TV channels.