WTC7 video (new?)

[Justin39640]

I was bouncing around youtube links when i ran into this one
i cant remember seeing it linked here or running into it before

seeing its been up for over a year and it only has 3000 hits
i dont think many woo sites are linking it (for obvious reasons)

in contrast most pro woo videos have 100s of thousands of hits (in a year or two)

this video shows the west face and the east HEAVY SMOKE OBVIOUSLY COMING FROM WTC7
and heavy fire compared to the popular video that was released (and its knocking out window panes)

it also clearly shows the extent of damage north of WTC7 prior to its collapse and just how far the debris from the N tower fell

K0CU-teE0bQ&NR

[alienentity]

I was bouncing around youtube links when i ran into this one
i cant remember seeing it linked here or running into it before

seeing its been up for over a year and it only has 3000 hits
i dont think many woo sites are linking it (for obvious reasons)

in contrast most pro woo videos have 100s of thousands of hits (in a year or two)

this video shows the west face and the east HEAVY SMOKE OBVIOUSLY COMING FROM WTC7
and heavy fire compared to the popular video that was released (and its knocking out window panes)

it also clearly shows the extent of damage north of WTC7 prior to its collapse and just how far the debris from the N tower fell

K0CU-teE0bQ&NR

Thanks for sharing that. hadn't seen it.

Just a few small fires.....riiiiiiiight.

[T.A.M.]

I dunno the area well enough to ID that building as WTC7 but it has the same exterior and looks like WTC7...and it certainly is on fire...

TAM:)

[Brainster]

Sure looks like it; that's quite a find. Seems to be from the CBS New York affiliate.

[HyJinX]

If you turn your speakers all the way up and listen really, really, really hard... you still won't hear any CD explosions as the building collapses. Oh...and I didn't see any covert demolition experts sneaking in to set up hush-a-booms.

[alienentity]

If you turn your speakers all the way up and listen really, really, really hard... you still won't hear any CD explosions as the building collapses. Oh...and I didn't see any covert demolition experts sneaking in to set up hush-a-booms.

Yes, but the NWO already got to the original tapes and doctored the audio. Doesn't prove anything! LOL

[triforcharity]

That building that you see is in fact WTC 7. This is whata people refer to "small" fires. Thats a little more than a small fire. Everyone can agree on that. Now, did anyone notice the sound at :59 seconds, listen to it. That is the sound of steel beams falling, or something steel, ovbiously very large, falling.

Notice it??

[alienentity]

That building that you see is in fact WTC 7. This is whata people refer to "small" fires. Thats a little more than a small fire. Everyone can agree on that. Now, did anyone notice the sound at :59 seconds, listen to it. That is the sound of steel beams falling, or something steel, ovbiously very large, falling.

Notice it??

I heard it also, but I can't tell where it's coming from. Might be from somewhere other than 7.

If anyone finds out where this footage came from, it's likely that the station still has raw footage. Now THAT would be extremely useful documentary evidence.

[HeyLeroy]

That building that you see is in fact WTC 7. This is whata people refer to "small" fires. Thats a little more than a small fire. Everyone can agree on that. Now, did anyone notice the sound at :59 seconds, listen to it. That is the sound of steel beams falling, or something steel, ovbiously very large, falling.

Notice it??

Perfect opportunity to try out this website I found: http://www.splicd.com/

It lets you point to a particular timeframe in a youtube video.

http://splicd.com/K0CU-teE0bQ/55/65

[BigBird]

Excellent video! I'm very curious to know what the hell would make those cars look like that though.. They look scorched... I would expect them to be scratched and dented and have extensive damage, of course, but not to look like that.... What do you suspect was the main cause of the damage? The big beams crashing down, big debris/dust cloud rushing down the street, etc?

[kookbreaker]

Excellent video! I'm very curious to know what the hell would make those cars look like that though.. They look scorched... I would expect them to be scratched and dented and have extensive damage, of course, but not to look like that.... What do you suspect was the main cause of the damage? The big beams crashing down, big debris/dust cloud rushing down the street, etc?

A lot of burning debris came down. Some of it hit the cars, even if it missed some it wouldn't take much to spread given how close the vehicles are to each other.

[newton3376]

Excellent video! I'm very curious to know what the hell would make those cars look like that though.. They look scorched... I would expect them to be scratched and dented and have extensive damage, of course, but not to look like that.... What do you suspect was the main cause of the damage? The big beams crashing down, big debris/dust cloud rushing down the street, etc?

Maybe they looked scorched because they are......well......SCORCHED

[triforcharity]

Bigbird,

I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that right after the first collapse (South Tower) that there were MANY MANY cars on fire. There were other buildings on fire too, but our main concern was to get anyone and everyone OUT of lower Manhattan ASAP.

We did fight some car fires, but only around the immeadiate vacinity where we were working. When the North Tower came down, some of those cars re-ignited. Some didn't. Again, our primary concern at that time waas Search and Rescue, and evacuation. Burning cars came second.

BTW, I was near that very intersection, and most likely saaw those cars burning. But, however, I was on a rescue crew, so I didn't do much firefighting that day. Heck, I don't think I even picked up a hose untill late that afternoon, maybe even early evening.

Hope this helps.

[triforcharity]

Sorry, off on a tangent there. The main cause was one would ignite due to flaming debris, then it would move on to the next. Its very quick.

[sylvan8798]

Comment highlight: manwello15: Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.

[triforcharity]

Sylvan,

Than WHY does NYC BC (New York City Building Codes) REQUIRE it on exposed steel in highrises??? So that they have something else to do?? So that they don't get bored??

Steel weakens at 50% of its melting point, or around 1100 degrees. Secondly, I saaw the bulge in WTC 7 on 9/11. How did it get there?? A fat girl leaning on the exterrior walls??? Come on, don't bring stupid stuff to the table.

[BigBird]

Comment highlight: manwello15: Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.

I must have been watching the wrong channel... I could have sworn planes flew into the buildings first, didn't they? :rolleyes:

[BigBird]

Bigbird,

I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that right after the first collapse (South Tower) that there were MANY MANY cars on fire. There were other buildings on fire too, but our main concern was to get anyone and everyone OUT of lower Manhattan ASAP.

We did fight some car fires, but only around the immeadiate vacinity where we were working. When the North Tower came down, some of those cars re-ignited. Some didn't. Again, our primary concern at that time waas Search and Rescue, and evacuation. Burning cars came second.

BTW, I was near that very intersection, and most likely saaw those cars burning. But, however, I was on a rescue crew, so I didn't do much firefighting that day. Heck, I don't think I even picked up a hose untill late that afternoon, maybe even early evening.

Hope this helps.

Wow thanks for your posts! They do in fact help a lot! :)

[LashL]

Comment highlight: manwello15: Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.

sylvan,

Your post is neither logical nor accurate. Fire does, indeed, bring down buildings, and has been doing so since time immemorial.

Steel framed buildings are, indeed, susceptible to fire (thus the Building Code requirement for the addition of SFRM to steel framing), and most veteran firefighters will tell you that if they had a choice, they would much rather go into a burning concrete building than a burning steel-framed building. Why do you suppose that is?

[Justin39640]

sylvan,

Your post is neither logical nor accurate. Fire does, indeed, bring down buildings, and has been doing so since time immemorial.

Steel framed buildings are, indeed, susceptible to fire (thus the Building Code requirement for the addition of SFRM to steel framing), and most veteran firefighters will tell you that if they had a choice, they would much rather go into a burning concrete building than a burning steel-framed building. Why do you suppose that is?

i think he was quoting one of the responses on the youtube page lol
i thought the same thing for a second too
then i looked again

remember kids (like i told C7) "measure twice, cut once" lol

[Quad4_72]

Comment highlight: manwello15: Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.

What other buildings have had two massive jets crashed into them loaded with fuel traveling at the speed of a bullet? Oh you forgot that part huh...

[T.A.M.]

when we are hurling the sarcasm, lets make sure it is at manwello15, the youtube poster who Sylvan quoted, and not at Sylvan.

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

I can see why few twoofers link to this. I has the actual sounds of the collapse. Doesn't it sound an awful lot like the Balzac-Vitry demolition?

Of course, it could not have been demolished by that method, either, because the pre-weakening would have been much more extensive, labor-intensive and bloody obvious to a casual observer.

[triforcharity]

My bad, my bad. PLEASE forgive me sylvan!! I'M NOT WORTHY!! I'M NOT WORTHY!!!


Anyway, bigbird.

You are absolutely welcome. Feel free to ask questions all you like. I don't mind, for the most part. Except for the falling bodies. I don't want to discuss that!

[LashL]

sylvan,

If you are quoting someone else, particularly at another site, please link to what you are quoting and/or use the quote function, so that it is clear in your posts the parts that are someone else's words that you are citing and the parts that are your own words. That will go a long way to avoiding confusion, and will go a long way to ensuring that your own words are clearly distinct from those of a conspiracy fantasist.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is how I read sylvan8798's comment:

Comment highlight:
Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.


ETA: I think the comment may have been deleted, because I can't find it to confirm...

[Justin39640]

sylvan,

If you are quoting someone else, particularly at another site, please link to what you are quoting and/or use the quote function, so that it is clear in your posts the parts that are someone else's words that you are citing and the parts that are your own words. That will go a long way to avoiding confusion, and will go a long way to ensuring that your own words are clearly distinct from those of a conspiracy fantasist.

it was from the YT comments in the video in my op

i do agree quoting like that looks confusing

here ill fix it for him

Comment highlight: Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.

[Justin39640]

This is how I read sylvan8798's comment:

damn beat me to it and did a better job :(
lol

[Grizzly Bear]

This is how I read sylvan8798's comment:




ETA: I think the comment may have been deleted, because I can't find it to confirm...

Either that or it got buried behind the pages... youtube's comment system isn't exactly all that clean....

[Justin39640]

Either that or it got buried behind the pages... youtube's comment system isn't exactly all that clean....

http://www.youtube.com/user/manwello15
id say he fits the MO

[OneRedEye]

Secondly, I saaw the bulge in WTC 7 on 9/11.

You saw the bulge? (Duh, that's what you just said)

Can you describe the bulge in more detail? Where was it located, how extensive an area did it cover, what was the approximate deflection, did it change significantly over time? Were you in contact with anyone involved in the transit measurements? Time frames? I would be grateful for anything you can answer, or otherwise elaborate on. Even third-hand chatter is potentially useful. Thanks in advance.

[Justin39640]

I dunno the area well enough to ID that building as WTC7 but it has the same exterior and looks like WTC7...and it certainly is on fire...

TAM:)

when he was in the lobby of the building he was on barklay st looking south down washington st, the west side of WTC7 on the left the verizon bldg on the right

the second shot he was on the corner of west broadway and barklay
right in front of the ill fated yet seldom mentioned (at least by truthers) 30 west broadway, aka Fiterman Hall

heres a map :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

where he was standing on W bway was completely covered in debris from 7
if that gives any scope of "into its own footprint"

[T.A.M.]

My bad, my bad. PLEASE forgive me sylvan!! I'M NOT WORTHY!! I'M NOT WORTHY!!!


Anyway, bigbird.

You are absolutely welcome. Feel free to ask questions all you like. I don't mind, for the most part. Except for the falling bodies. I don't want to discuss that!

heh man, just trying to keep the infighting (especially infighting that is over an incorrect assumption) to a minimum.

You may find now that it has become known that you were a rescue worker (fireman?) on 9/11, that you may be asked a tonne of related questions.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

BTW, I was near that very intersection, and most likely saaw those cars burning. But, however, I was on a rescue crew, so I didn't do much firefighting that day. Heck, I don't think I even picked up a hose untill late that afternoon, maybe even early evening.

You mean you don't remember every single detail of everything you did that day, timed to the very minute, if not second?????

With talk like that you'll be providing people like magi5 with their smoking gun fodder (and it seems that OneRedEye is putting in the advance party).


In seriousness, though ... congrats on and thanks for doing a job I doubt I could ever do. :cheerleader2

[Quad4_72]

sylvan,

If you are quoting someone else, particularly at another site, please link to what you are quoting and/or use the quote function, so that it is clear in your posts the parts that are someone else's words that you are citing and the parts that are your own words. That will go a long way to avoiding confusion, and will go a long way to ensuring that your own words are clearly distinct from those of a conspiracy fantasist.

Yes this would help. My apologies for the confusion sylvan. My previous comment applies to the poster you quoted.

[Justin39640]

heres one of those contrasts
the video in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147450)
was posted 3 days ago
and almost has more hits that the video above

[sylvan8798]

Sylvan,

Than WHY does NYC BC (New York City Building Codes) REQUIRE it on exposed steel in highrises??? So that they have something else to do?? So that they don't get bored??

Steel weakens at 50% of its melting point, or around 1100 degrees. Secondly, I saaw the bulge in WTC 7 on 9/11. How did it get there?? A fat girl leaning on the exterrior walls??? Come on, don't bring stupid stuff to the table.

Chill, dearie. I'm quoting the stupid comments from the youtube video about building 7. I'm an engineer, and have frequently asked this question of ct believers about the fireproofing. Not only required in highrises but in many small buildings as well, depending on their usage. Of course I am repeatedly ignored, since ct's can't answer these questions.

[sylvan8798]

when we are hurling the sarcasm, lets make sure it is at manwello15, the youtube poster who Sylvan quoted, and not at Sylvan.

TAM:)

Thanks TAM :blush:

I'll make sure to make that distinction clearer in the future.

[triforcharity]

heh man, just trying to keep the infighting (especially infighting that is over an incorrect assumption) to a minimum.

You may find now that it has become known that you were a rescue worker (fireman?) on 9/11, that you may be asked a tonne of related questions.

TAM:)


I don't mind the questions, but limited and not too detailed. Even still to this day, I get choked up. My wife want's me to talk to her abou ti sometimes. She lived in VA at the time, and we were just dating. Its difficult, Even with her. But, like I said, I don't mind. I just have to be VERY clear as to what I say. And yes, I was a firefighter, but, like I have said earlier, I didn't do much firefighting that day.

The ONLY thing I won't talk about is the jumpers. That's off limits. Other than that, I don't mind.

[alienentity]

I don't mind the questions, but limited and not too detailed. Even still to this day, I get choked up. My wife want's me to talk to her abou ti sometimes. She lived in VA at the time, and we were just dating. Its difficult, Even with her. But, like I said, I don't mind. I just have to be VERY clear as to what I say. And yes, I was a firefighter, but, like I have said earlier, I didn't do much firefighting that day.

The ONLY thing I won't talk about is the jumpers. That's off limits. Other than that, I don't mind.

Must say, I'm very glad you're participating on this forum. Thanks.

[Juniversal]

I listened very closey and the sounds of explosives NOT going off was deafining. ;) Good vid. New to me. And i'm with alienentity. Glad you joined the forums triforcharity. Good to have someone who can really add extra perspective and first hand knowledge.

[triforcharity]

Thanks, I really appreciate it AE. Sometimes I just feel like nobody wants to hear my ramblings. I think people just think I am an old (not that I am old or anything) rambling idiot who drinks too much wiskey. (Is there even such a thing as TOO MUCH wiskey?)

[Thunder]

the reporter keeps on calling it "war". he must work for the NWO as a propaganda agent.

[Magenta]

when he was in the lobby of the building he was on barklay st looking south down washington st, the west side of WTC7 on the left the verizon bldg on the right

the second shot he was on the corner of west broadway and barklay
right in front of the ill fated yet seldom mentioned (at least by truthers) 30 west broadway, aka Fiterman Hall

heres a map :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

where he was standing on W bway was completely covered in debris from 7
if that gives any scope of "into its own footprint"


Interesting video, and thanks for the map and orientation: it helps a lot for anyone not familiar with the area.

[newton3376]

Thanks, I really appreciate it AE. Sometimes I just feel like nobody wants to hear my ramblings. I think people just think I am an old (not that I am old or anything) rambling idiot who drinks too much wiskey. (Is there even such a thing as TOO MUCH wiskey?)

Too much whiskey?

Of course not sir....

[triforcharity]

Especially CROWN ROYAL!!! Yes sir, On the rocks......Makes my tongue dance in circles!!

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj232/chimami_pix/crown_royal.jpg

[dropzone]

(skulking off as I prefer Old Crow, though a whiskey vs a boubon isn't an accurate comparison)

[OneRedEye]

With talk like that you'll be providing people like magi5 with their smoking gun fodder (and it seems that OneRedEye is putting in the advance party).
???

You mean you don't remember every single detail of everything you did that day, timed to the very minute, if not second????? I could not shake the feeling that I was coming off as a demanding and impetuous bitch, if that's what you're talking about, but it's not every day that you run into someone that saw the bulge. Perhaps I could have been more supplicating, but it wears poorly.

Sorry, triforcharity, if I came across as trying to suck the life out of you. Greetings, triforcharity, pleased to meet you. I have great admiration and not a little envy for those who run towards danger. It's not my desire to dredge up any unpleasant memories, though I note you've spent quite a bit of time in this subforum, and as you said, only certain subjects are off-limits, quite understandably. Detail is desired but hardly essential. If I could distill it into three vague questions:

- Where were you when you saw the bulge?
- How long (seconds, minutes, a passing glance) did you see it?
- Did you notice it on your own, or did someone call your attention to it?

This is peripheral and off topic, so allow me to address the thread. The video is relatively new, yes, but months old. It's a goldmine for anyone interested in certain aspects of reconstruction not previously available.

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely. Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks. I have to imagine streets full of burning cars is an impediment to rescue operations.

[chillzero]

???

I could not shake the feeling that I was coming off as a demanding and impetuous bitch, if that's what you're talking about, but it's not every day that you run into someone that saw the bulge. Perhaps I could have been more supplicating, but it wears poorly.

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP. Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people, and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear. The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

[newton3376]

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely. Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks. I have to imagine streets full of burning cars is an impediment to rescue operations.

I don't understand your point here...

Are you trying to imply that there was something strange or out of the ordinary because there were some cars that were only partially consumed or had only scorch marks while other cars were completely comsumed?

With the kind of devastation and destruction that occured on 9-11 (which was anything but an "ordinary" day) are you really surprised to find varying degrees of damage to cars?

[Justin39640]

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP. Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people, and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear. The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

ok im trying to wrap my head around this and if i misinterpret it, sorry
since you are addressing me

i know the details very well
but there isnt much video between the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7 thats up close like this

i thought it was relevant to several threads and "ideas"
including
"no large fires"
obviously there was
"the smoke was just coming from the pile"
obviously thats a mistake
"that barry jennings got his directions messed up when he looked out the window and saw burning buses etc"
it appears he was looking north
"the WTC7 didnt get hit by debris (or a lot of it)"

i have always seen stills with WTC1 debris on barkley st and beyond but not much video
this shows uncut (the one shot) the damage extending north and would indicate that WTC7 took a large hit

i dont know why i would scream "smoking gun" other than to be sarcastic as i am not a truther (with 700 posts i think i would have been outed by now) even though i do give LIHOP a 1% feasibility

the main reason i point out details is probably for the same reason triforcharity joined up here and several others
were just sick and tired of the "Bill Smith" when it comes to the utter disrespect towards the dead (many of my neighbors are among them), and the contempt for real science or analysis of evidence

again if i read you wrong i apologize

ETA: NEVER FORGET! :mad:

[chillzero]

ok im trying to wrap my head around this and if i misinterpret it, sorry
since you are addressing me
Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I am clearly addressing OneRedEye. Well... I say 'clearly' ... I apologise if I was not clear, although I did my best - I quoted him/her, and I directly referenced him/her in my previous post to which s/he responded - and that was quoted in the post you yourself quoted, as it was a direct response to his/her comments.

:confused:

I've never accused you of anything, let alone being a truther, and I stated above my own support for triforcharity - in the first post of this chain where I criticise OneRedEye and magi5 by name.

again if i read you wrong i apologize


Ok.
You clearly did.

[Justin39640]

Perhaps you should re-read my post, since I am clearly addressing OneRedEye. Well... I say 'clearly' ... I apologise if I was not clear, although I did my best - I quoted him/her, and I directly referenced him/her in my previous post to which s/he responded - and that was quoted in the post you yourself quoted, as it was a direct response to his/her comments.

:confused:

I've never accused you of anything, let alone being a truther, and I stated above my own support for triforcharity - in the first post of this chain where I criticise OneRedEye and magi5 by name.


Ok.
You clearly did.

sorry my confusion
i thought you meant me as in im the OP of the thread lol
again why i had some issues wrapping my head around your statements

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP (snip) The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.

i actually hesitated a long while before i decided to respond
i think conflicting ideas are a good thing
they help work out ideas and you come to a logical middle ground where things do agree
when it comes to truthers that doesnt happen
and thats when i get angry

the smoking gun part was really what confused me since so many truthers use that phrase
it does still kinda feel like a shot at me though

i do apologize (care to find a middle ground? lol)

[chillzero]

sorry my confusion
i thought you meant me as in im the OP of the thread lol
again why i had some issues wrapping my head around your statements



i actually hesitated a long while before i decided to respond
i think conflicting ideas are a good thing
they help work out ideas and you come to a logical middle ground where things do agree
when it comes to truthers that doesnt happen
and thats when i get angry

the smoking gun part was really what confused me since so many truthers use that phrase
it does still kinda feel like a shot at me though



Oh my!
I just realised that I owe you an apology too.
When I talked about the OP - I was actually thinking of magi5's OP in another thread - which is why I named him/her in my comments. Not you at all.

I am so sorry!
:blush:


i do apologize (care to find a middle ground? lol)

Sure.
:hug5

[leftysergeant]

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely.

And I have noticed that those vehicles completely consumed tend to occur in large groups. I would speculate on the basis of my own experience, that they were mostly set ablaze by fuel running under them, probably from one vehicle that burned long enough for the gas tank to cook off. This would, of course, cause more to cook off, so that we have a very brief but intense fire. This would tend to reduce them to no longercombustible hulks rather quickly.

Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks.

These may have occurred singly, as a result of ballistic damage or burning debris blowing in through an open window. Burning material like papers under the engine of a car can cause fuel lines to melt and leak. The engine compartment will burn very hot, but only until the fuel puimp loses power and all the fuel is consumed. How long a car will burn if only the appholstery is involved is anybody's guess.

I would suggest, of course, that thick, choking dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. A fire in many fuels will go out in an atmosphere that contains enough air to support human respiration.

[OneRedEye]

No, you come across (to me at least) as very similar to the OP.
Maybe you can tell me which thread that is, since it apparently isn't this one.

Wanting as much detail as possible about something that happened years ago, and likely happened in a bit of a blur for most people...
Yes, yes?

...and your motivation for asking is not entirely clear.
Uhh, curiousity? I realize asking questions at JREF is received much like a fart at the dinner table, but this takes the cake. Perhaps if I'd peppered my post with insults directed at truthers, you'd be less inclined to question my motivation. Ya think?

The OP wants so much detail so that when two people's accounts conflict slightly - as they will - he can cry 'smoking gun!!! Lies!!!'.
There's a term for this sort of syndrome, the effects of which you're displaying. It escapes me right now.

The bulge doesn't get much air time anymore. Information was always scarce; the only detail I've seen was in Peter Hayden's account, and it wasn't much. I saw a rare opportunity to get a little more information from a horse's mouth - too good to pass up, even though (on the whole) I could really give a rat's patootie, truth be told. Since it causes people to crawl out of holes and start pointing

"You are not of the body!"

forget it, I withdraw the questions. I don't care anymore.

Are you trying to imply that there was something strange or out of the ordinary because there were some cars that were only partially consumed or had only scorch marks while other cars were completely comsumed?

No, but I personally didn't have an answer as to why it was so, other than just invoking the magic and mystery of the day. leftysergeant, however, did have an answer.

And I have noticed that those vehicles completely consumed tend to occur in large groups. I would speculate on the basis of my own experience, that they were mostly set ablaze by fuel running under them, probably from one vehicle that burned long enough for the gas tank to cook off. This would, of course, cause more to cook off, so that we have a very brief but intense fire. This would tend to reduce them to no longercombustible hulks rather quickly.

These may have occurred singly, as a result of ballistic damage or burning debris blowing in through an open window. Burning material like papers under the engine of a car can cause fuel lines to melt and leak. The engine compartment will burn very hot, but only until the fuel puimp loses power and all the fuel is consumed. How long a car will burn if only the appholstery is involved is anybody's guess.

And an excellent answer it is, thank you. You have experience in firefighting, right? Makes perfect sense. I hadn't noticed the proximity factor and, now that you mention it, my dim recollection is that the partials were more separated than the logjam of cars seen in the video. Quantity-distance.

I would suggest, of course, that thick, choking dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. A fire in many fuels will go out in an atmosphere that contains enough air to support human respiration.
Brilliant observation! There were also blankets of dust and chips on everything. Throwing dirt on the fire, it's how I killed my campfire last weekend, talk about missing the obvious. Thanks.

[chillzero]

Maybe you can tell me which thread that is, since it apparently isn't this one.
You're right ... it was this one I was thinking of:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147256



Uhh, curiousity? I realize asking questions at JREF is received much like a fart at the dinner table, but this takes the cake. Perhaps if I'd peppered my post with insults directed at truthers, you'd be less inclined to question my motivation. Ya think?
It's the manner in which you asked and the detail you expect someone to cough up for you just because he was in the vicinity that day. It was rather enthusiastically asking for a lot of information and brought the (other) OP to mind. I'm willing to be proven wrong and will apologise if I am.

[newton3376]

No, but I personally didn't have an answer as to why it was so, other than just invoking the magic and mystery of the day. leftysergeant, however, did have an answer.

Fair enough....

If lefty really does have the experience he claims (so far I believe his claims) then he is much more qualified to answer your questions than I am. This is out of my field of expertise.

[OneRedEye]

It's the manner in which you asked and the detail you expect someone to cough up for you just because he was in the vicinity that day.
I considered how to word the questions for some time. Finally, I just decided to ask them. In most contexts, that wouldn't arouse any sort of suspicion. It certainly could be considered forthright or even a bit rude and, if it came across that way, I apologize. Honestly, I don't expect anything, though I wanted information and decided to ask. There already are conflicts in the account of the bulge, that's why I asked. If I had the transit measurements in my hot little hands, I wouldn't bother Mr/Ms triforcharity. I also wouldn't dream of bothering (Deputy) Chief Hayden with trite BS by asking him directly for the measurements, but I thought someone who was posting on a board where we are both members might be more... approachable. And, maybe, might know even more than Hayden.

I don't expect another telling to jibe with any other set of statements, but I'd hoped that another fuzzy piece might contribute to a clearer picture overall.

It was rather enthusiastically asking for a lot of information and brought the (other) OP to mind.
It wouldn't be the first time I've come across as foaming at the mouth. The degree of interest in this unusual event may admittedly be bordering on neurotic, but I'm not embarrassed to say so here because I doubt that I'm alone in that. On the fixation scale, it's above earthquakes and even searching for lost mines, but below constraint-based programming (at least for the moment). Dig?

I'm willing to be proven wrong and will apologise if I am.
No need to apologize. Especially if I have no need to prove you wrong! It is telling that I also spent some time before posting deliberating how best to not radiate woo, just because I saw the chance to learn something. Again, it came down to just asking the questions. Some people are genuinely curious; strange thing, I know.

If lefty really does have the experience he claims (so far I believe his claims) then he is much more qualified to answer your questions than I am. This is out of my field of expertise.
The answer was quite satisfactory, in any case.

[BigAl]

I considered how to word the questions for some time. Finally, I just decided to ask them. In most contexts, that wouldn't arouse any sort of suspicion. It certainly could be considered forthright or even a bit rude and, if it came across that way, I apologize. Honestly, I don't expect anything, though I wanted information and decided to ask. There already are conflicts in the account of the bulge, that's why I asked. If I had the transit measurements in my hot little hands, I wouldn't bother Mr/Ms triforcharity. I also wouldn't dream of bothering (Deputy) Chief Hayden with trite BS by asking him directly for the measurements, but I thought someone who was posting on a board where we are both members might be more... approachable. And, maybe, might know even more than Hayden.


I have to ask, given your insistence for information, have you read the entire NIST report on WTC7?

[OneRedEye]

Hi, Big Al. Se habla something?

I have to ask, given your insistence for information...
Seriously, you call this:

forget it, I withdraw the questions. I don't care anymore.

'insistence'?

What ever.

... have you read the entire NIST report on WTC7?
Good question! No, I haven't, just the few parts that interested me. There was the time when I replicated their sub-pixel horizontal deflection of WTC7 through an entirely different method, so I was kinda interested in that part. I did search for 'transit' and 'bulge' though, and didn't find anything new. Do you have any handy reference in there to point to, at your fingertips? Just asking. Much obliged.

Can anyone tell me at what point I lose my student status around here? I'd really like to retain it for at least another year. But, please understand, I'm not insisting on an answer to my pesky questions.

[triforcharity]

???

I could not shake the feeling that I was coming off as a demanding and impetuous bitch, if that's what you're talking about, but it's not every day that you run into someone that saw the bulge. Perhaps I could have been more supplicating, but it wears poorly.

Sorry, triforcharity, if I came across as trying to suck the life out of you. Greetings, triforcharity, pleased to meet you. I have great admiration and not a little envy for those who run towards danger. It's not my desire to dredge up any unpleasant memories, though I note you've spent quite a bit of time in this subforum, and as you said, only certain subjects are off-limits, quite understandably. Detail is desired but hardly essential. If I could distill it into three vague questions:

- Where were you when you saw the bulge?
- How long (seconds, minutes, a passing glance) did you see it?
- Did you notice it on your own, or did someone call your attention to it?

......

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Edit: I do see, on second viewing, most were consumed. And it was probably long enough after ignition for them to burn out completely. Still, there are quite a few pictures floating around showing cars partially consumed or with only scorch marks. I have to imagine streets full of burning cars is an impediment to rescue operations.


First, you did not come across as abrasive or a bitch, so its ok.

Secondly, to address some of your previous questions.

I cannot recall exactly what time of day it was when I waas by WTC 7. I don't even think I looked at my watch untill well into the evening, when I stopped to get some food and water. I walked near WTC 7 before that time to get some water, most likely around 3-4 pm or so. I did see the noticeable bulge and contortions in the East wall, near the 12-18th floor, IIRC. I would say, just speculation mind you, that the bulge was about 2 feet or so, and nowhere near uniform. It was very wavy to describe it best. There really was no rhyme or reason to it.
I only passed by it on the north side, but just briefly, and didn't stick around long due to the fact that we all knew that WTC7 was unstable. I made a comment to another firefighter that I was with, and he said at that time they (Captains and such) had already noticed it, and had a transit set up to monitor it. Other than that, I really didn't know much more about it. But, I can tell you, that I knew that WTC7 was not going to survive the daylight. I was right. I was near it when it started going down, but only heard it, I did not actually see it. We didn't run, as we knew nobody was near it, because at that time, they had already moved everyone away.

The burned appearance of the cars is somewhat interesting, even with a couple of acres of fire raining from the sky, but a more interesting question is why they stopped burning. Fire suppression? Burning cars came second. Haven't really looked at it closely in the video so I don't want to talk out of turn, but many of those cars look far from fully consumed and few (none?) are even smoldering. I've only seen a few cars torched in my time, but they do like to burn once started and usually go to completion without intervention.

Maybe putting them out was high priority after all, given personnel had to move through those streets. What do you think, triforcharity?

Me personally, I had nothing to do with firefighting untill very late in the evening. I was not on duty that day, and had left the station late (About 8:20 or so, which is late because I usually get off much earlier) I had to wait around to finish my AARs, or After Action Reports. I left that morning, and had some errands to run, so did what I had to do. I was still in Manhattan when I heard the plane fly over (I noticed it because it was fairly low, and loud) I cannot tell you where I was when I heard that, but I can tell you that the explosion from the impact of the plane was heard all over Manhattan, and most likely even across the harbour in NJ. I have a personal radio (Handie Talkie as FDNY calls it) and heard the guys from 10 house call it into dispatch, and give a bunch of alarms and such. I knew this was going to be a long day at that very moment in time. Never did I imagine it would turn out the be a living hell.
I immeadiatly headed back to 10 house, parked my truck, and headed over to the CP that was set up. I was instructed to help the injured outside, as I was a medic at the time. My job was triage and care of the walking wounded. That was fine by me.
Anyway, as far as the cars are concerned, I personally was not involved in firefighting, as my job was search and Rescue. I know that after the collapses, the main concern was S&R. Sure, some crew most likely started firefighting operations, but, as we all know the water pressure in LM was very minimal. So we had to set up many lines to get water into the area of GZ.
But, as you can imagine, it only takes 10 minutes on average for a car to completely burn itself out. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And I can assure you, it takes quite a while to stretch lines, especially when you take into consideration that many of the trucks were totaled and burried under debris, so hose was in high demand, and low supply.

So, in conclusion, putting out cars was somewhat high priority, as exploding cars CAN pose safety issues and such. But, my crew was not concerned. All I wanted to do was find my friends.

PS. Have you watched the 9/11 movie by the Naudet Brothers?? In that, you can hear a screaching type noise. That is a PASS (Personal Alert Safety System) device. It only goes off if a firefighter says idle too long. Imagine many many of those going off, knowing that there are injured by alive firefighters in there, and you can't do a dag-gum thing about it. Like someone killing your brother, but you are tied to a lamppost.

Here is a GREAT slideshow WITH audio of a PASS device going off.

Yes, they do have issues, but I would rather have it than not. It has saved my rear a few times.

http://util.wickedlocal.com/multimedia/metrowestdailynews/firebeeper/

Listen to that sound. Some are different.

[triforcharity]

RedEye,

I think (Pure speculation on my part, but en educaated guess on my part) is that the meaasurements were likely jotted down on some radom piece of paper, burried in some obscure report by FDNY (BTW, some can be QUITE LENGTHY, and filled with technical jargon that someone outside of the field would not understand, such as {CC=Chief complaint, ALOC=Altered level of conciousness AVPU was a P= ALert Verbal Painfull unresponsive, which is an acronym we use to descrive a persons conciousness, etc} but I digress)

Most likely if you had all the AARs for that day, you might find it, but you would have to have scoured thousands of pages.

Hope that helps.

[OneRedEye]

Thank you!!! You made it SO worth asking the questions, after all.

First, you did not come across as abrasive or a bitch, so its ok.
Cool, I'm glad. Not the intent at all.

...most likely around 3-4 pm or so. I did see the noticeable bulge and contortions in the East wall, near the 12-18th floor, IIRC. I would say, just speculation mind you, that the bulge was about 2 feet or so, and nowhere near uniform. It was very wavy to describe it best. There really was no rhyme or reason to it.
A wealth of info. Understood, it's very approximate, and just a brief impression, but you've added significantly to the body of information.

...he said at that time they (Captains and such) had already noticed it, and had a transit set up to monitor it.
I've seen the picture of the guy looking through the transit. I didn't dare hope you were that guy, but there was always a chance. I'm sure you agree the grunt doing the work would know a lot more about the character and evolution of the bulge than the captains who ordered the work. As it is, your description may exceed (in some respects) the detail given to the chiefs!

But, as you can imagine, it only takes 10 minutes on average for a car to completely burn itself out.
This I did not know. I realize my perception of that was based on... not much. Explains why there was nothing left going on there by the time reporters could get through, 4-6(?) hours later. In your opinion, were the reporters acting in a rogue fashion by moving into unsafe areas?

PS. Have you watched the 9/11 movie by the Naudet Brothers??
Only bits and pieces, definitely need to buy it.

In that, you can hear a screaching type noise. That is a PASS (Personal Alert Safety System) device. It only goes off if a firefighter says idle too long. Imagine many many of those going off, knowing that there are injured by alive firefighters in there, and you can't do a dag-gum thing about it. Like someone killing your brother, but you are tied to a lamppost.

I didn't know about this. That is totally oppressive, under the circumstances. I can't even imagine. I'd offer empathy but have never ever come close to that degree of tragedy; I offer sympathy for what it's worth.

____________

Edit (crosspost)
I think (Pure speculation on my part, but en educaated guess on my part) is that the meaasurements were likely jotted down on some radom piece of paper...
This is what I'd imagined, too.

...burried in some obscure report by FDNY ...
Except I'd also imagined it wasn't retained, but maybe??? The notion that a scrap of paper would disappear into the aethers under the circumstance is expected, somewhat bolstered by the absence of such empirical data figuring prominently in the NIST report, unless I'm missing something.

Most likely if you had all the AARs for that day, you might find it, but you would have to have scoured thousands of pages.

Hope that helps.
Oh yes it does. I don't know that I'm sufficiently motivated to attempt a search, but it's nice to know. Thanks again; I owe you a round, or several, if only virtual. Cheers!

[triforcharity]

"In your opinion, were the reporters acting in a rogue fashion by moving into unsafe areas?"

No, I don't think so. Some of them were quite helpfull. There were some (VERY FEW) whom I personally threatened to have them arrested if they didn't listen to the orders to move, or go to a different area, or trying to interview myself and other ff's while we are trying to get stuff done, etc.

I vividly remember one reporter giving me his flashlight as I lost mine running for my life after the 1st tower collapsed. I asked him if I could use it for a minute, and he said I could have it. I still have that flashlight on my desk. He also gave me his bottle of water to wash my face off so I could see. I never got his name though. Too bad, I would love to thank him personally.

So, as a whole, no, they were not a hinderance. For the most part, they were quite helpfull. One guy set his camera down and helped me carry a guy to an ambulance nearby. Most were more of a hero than myself. They didn't have to help, it was my job.

[Justin39640]

Oh my!
I just realised that I owe you an apology too.
When I talked about the OP - I was actually thinking of magi5's OP in another thread - which is why I named him/her in my comments. Not you at all.

I am so sorry!
:blush:


ahha lol
after i left this morning to do a few jobs i thought that exact scenario
(maybe the thread was confused for another)

that OP was a doosey lol

no problem :)

Sure.
:hug5[/QUOTE]

aww :)