Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

apacherose105 makes a very specific claim in this post Hey, it didn't stop NIST from photoshopping the images of WTC that were taken after the North Tower fell.

It is a specific claim, and a claim for which evidence should be objective in nature and easy to verify/falsify.

I've made a new thread so this claim can either be corroborated, or falsified.

Please, present your evidence, apacherose105.

[e^n]

The photo he's referring to is this one:
edit: I linked the incorrect photo, please see below.

Arie from LC did what appears to be a decent analysis of it here (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0CKUHGOF) which indicates that the photograph does seem to be a little strange (floors seem to bend upwards) the amount of damage is corroborated by other photographs.

[Drudgewire]

Arie from LC did what appears to be a decent analysis of it here (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0CKUHGOF) which indicates that the photograph does seem to be a little strange (floors seem to bend upwards) the amount of damage is corroborated by other photographs.
When I was searching for this I found the LC thread where it's discussed and was like "e^n? I know that dude." :)

[funk de fino]

That is faked but it is not the original from the NIST report??

[apacherose105]

i can't post links yet gimme one minute

[T.A.M.]

That is faked but it is not the original from the NIST report??

I agree. The version of that photo, the one in the NIST report, does not have the intact floor lines in the area of the damage as this one does...IIRC.

TAM:)

I have just examined the photo within the interim WTC7 report, and it is not the one displayed above, which has had floor lines added in where the damage is.

TAM:)

[apacherose105]

I agree. The version of that photo, the one in the NIST report, does not have the intact floor lines in the area of the damage as this one does...IIRC.

TAM:)

I have just examined the photo within the interim WTC7 report, and it is not the one displayed above, which has had floor lines added in where the damage is.

TAM:)

Which was is fake and which one is real?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8894)

the above image was used in this one below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8895)

here's another contradicting image

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8896)

the images where the lower corner of the building are scooped out appear to be doctored.

[T.A.M.]

So are you accusing the police department that provided that photo of faking it, or are you saying that the police department photo is different, and yet they have said nothing about NISt manipulating it???

Please elaborate, as you are making SERIOUS accusations here.


TAM:)

[apacherose105]

the photo further up in the post is one I've never seen before, someone obviously tried to draw the missing part of the building back in, rather poorly I may add.

they could have just used this one.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8896)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Which was is fake and which one is real?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8894)

the above image was used in this one below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8895)

here's another contradicting image

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8896)

the images where the lower corner of the building are scooped out appear to be doctored.
(NOTE: I have not had a chance to read through the paper linked by e^n)

apacherose105, posting several images without any analysis at how you came to your conclusions is of no value. Please provide source information for the images in question, including relevant timestamp information; what elements of the pictures are indicative of manipulation; etc.

[T.A.M.]

We've discussed this here before.

WTC7 in the photo just above seems to not have the damage seen in the police dept photo because the area in question in the PD photo is obstructed from view by the building adjacent to/in front of it.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the photo further up in the post is one I've never seen before, someone obviously tried to draw the missing part of the building back in, rather poorly I may add.

they could have just used this one.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8896)
Since you make this claim w/o providing your "work", I'll have to ask for your qualifications. If you are going to speak from a position of authority on an issue, you better be ready to back it up.

[T.A.M.]

OMG...jhc

TAM:)

[apacherose105]

I do provide evidence as to how I've come to my conclusion. The pictures of WTC 7's corner has been doctored to make the damage to the building look worse than it actually was.

Unfortunately, there are no timestamps embedded within the pictures. With the spit shot, it looks like the floors bend upwards into the gouged out corner, which makes no sense..

The large photo at the top is probably a joke, I've never seen that photo in an official report or any any other website before. I'm trying to fink the NIST report on Building 7s collapse right now.

[apacherose105]

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?

[T.A.M.]

So please choose which of the following you are insinuating:

1. NIST doctored the photo after they got it from the NYPD
2. The NYPD doctored it, then gave it to NIST.
3. The NYPD never gave them the photo.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You seem to be insinuating at least 1., which is easy enough to verify or refute, you just need to see the original photo from the NYPD...right.

As well, you better explain how they did what you allege they did.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I do provide evidence as to how I've come to my conclusion. The pictures of WTC 7's corner has been doctored to make the damage to the building look worse than it actually was.
No, you provided pictures. You did not provide evidence of your process.

Unfortunately, there are no timestamps embedded within the pictures. With the spit shot, it looks like the floors bend upwards into the gouged out corner, which makes no sense..
So, you assume that no damage occurred between any of the pictures and then make a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.
Or you could provide your work. Additionally, experience/expertise in photo analysis would be more benificial to your claim than structural engineering or architecutre.

But I can smell BS pretty good.
Then change your underwear.

Who are you to tell me I can't?
Someone that can recognize a fallacious appeal to authority and is perfectly willing to call you on it.

[Drudgewire]

But I can smell BS pretty good.
Well, everyone has to have a hobby I guess.

[beachnut]

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?
So far you are the one slinging pure BS.

Facts and evidence can cure that awful smell that follow you like a peanuts character.

[T.A.M.]

posting 2 pictures and saying the first one was used in the second one to make it look more damaged is not an analysis, it is barely even an argument.

Please provide evidence with analysis, or retract your claim, or else just remain here with ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY OR RESPECT.

TAM:)

[apacherose105]

damn, brutality.

you know you're right. the corner of the building just fell off. must have been al qaeda. DAMN foiled again.

:)

[T.A.M.]

making light is ok, usually, but you are making some pretty serious and nasty insinuations, and you have NOT BACKED THEM UP.

Would you like someone to accuse you of murder or worse, and not back it up.

You are accusing, at the very least, NIST of doctoring a photo provided to them by the NYPD purposely to mislead.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

damn, brutality.

you know you're right. the corner of the building just fell off. must have been al qaeda. DAMN foiled again.

:)
Scientific methodology is utterly foreign to you, isn't it?

[dudalb]

Wow,a CT has no evidence to back up an accusation of faking evidence.
What a surprise.

[T.A.M.]

yah but this guy is worse than usual...usually they at least attempt some degree of analysis or debate, this guys arguement is...

"NIST doctored the photo of WTC because I said so."

TAM:)

[apacherose105]

perhaps it's a misjudgement in the timestamping.

maybe the additional damage was done by explosions like the one heard in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPXKpbdfLd4

I'm trying to find the source for the original picture. You could help me out, or you could call me names. If you people don't clear this up, outrageous conspiracy theorists like myself will continue to say that the pic was doctored to make the damage look worse.

GO!

[Drudgewire]

yah but this guy is worse than usual...usually they at least attempt some degree of analysis or debate, this guys arguement is...

"NIST doctored the photo of WTC because I said so."

TAM:)
I did the usual dumb JREF thing and went looking on my own. Google seems to show every bit of evidence for this involves someone posting it at a forum and other forum posters thanking them for this potential smoking gun.

[T.A.M.]

I didn't call you names. You didn't come here looking for help, you made an allegation against the members of NIST, accusing them of purposely doctoring a photo involved in the investigation of the collapse of WTC.

You have provided no proof.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

apache:

I think you realize you have no proof, just "a hunch" and you now have backed yourself into a corner...so if I am wrong, provide your proof or analysis, or please retract your accusation against NIST.

TAM:)

[e^n]

I apologise, the initial picture I posted was the wrong one, indeed it is 'faked' (the construction lines do not exist on the real one).

The PDF I linked above is ok, it's conclusions are a little quickly drawn but there does seem to be some upward floor bending. apacherose105, I haven't seen you comment on it but please read it if possible, it resolves these contradictions.

edit:
When I was searching for this I found the LC thread where it's discussed and was like "e^n? I know that dude."
:cool:

I hope my points were valid.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

apache:

I think you realize you have no proof, just "a hunch" and you now have backed yourself into a corner...so if I am wrong, provide your proof or analysis, or please retract your accusation against NIST.

TAM:)
One of the greatest strengths of the scientific process is the elimination of hypothesis that do match the data. Nothing wrong with coming up with one of those hypotheses; there is something wrong with holding on to it after the time when it should have been discarded.

[ihaunter]

Which was is fake and which one is real?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8894)

the above image was used in this one below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8895)


Actually, you have that backwards. The bottom image was used to make the left side of the top image. It was skewed to make it look level. You can tell by the distorted rooftop of the building in front of it at the lower right. This is the kind of thing people here talking about when they ask you to show your work. Was the skewing done properly? The two images were taken from completely different angles and will thus show different things. Just because skewing one image makes it look similar to the other, doesn't mean they are showing the exact same thing. I'm sure some of the more skilled image analysts on this forum can tell you what is right/wrong with this.
Furthermore, as was said before, without timestamps you are unable to determine whether or not the building suffered any extra damage between photos.

[apacherose105]

precisely, well said.
but you knew what I meant.

[WildCat]

perhaps it's a misjudgement in the timestamping.

maybe the additional damage was done by explosions like the one heard in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPXKpbdfLd4
Ah, the famous fake explosion video! You do know that "truthers" added the explosion to it, don't you?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?

How can you know when someone is BSing about structural engineering when you don't know anything about engineering?

How is that only one or two of those (out of tens of thousands) who know the most about structural engineering (the engineers themselves) regard your claims as "BS"?

Would you not agree that an actual engineers ability to detect engineering BS is far superior to your own?

[apacherose105]

Ah, the famous fake explosion video! You do know that "truthers" added the explosion to it, don't you?

I could believe this if I saw some proof....

cmon, i'm trying to play by the proper rules of showing sources and references to data that's backed up and timestamped and blah blah. Do you have proof?

[Drudgewire]

I could believe this if I saw some proof....

He called it "the famous fake explosion video." We do have a search feature here. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gif

[WildCat]

I could believe this if I saw some proof....
Don't you think someone in the video would remark about the huge honking explosion they just heard? And funny, you never hear what the footage was from. Wouldn't want anyone to find the original, now would you? :rolleyes: And besides, no way a handycam is going to pick up an explosion that clearly. Sounds like it's from a special effects cd.

cmon, i'm trying to play by the proper rules of showing sources and references to data that's backed up and timestamped at blah blah.
Exactly, now you're catching on! Could you please tell us where exactly that footage is from? Because it would be nice to see the original, wouldn't it?

[apacherose105]

Structural engineer and demolition expert named Danny Jowekno:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

[WildCat]

Structural engineer and demolition expert named Danny Jowekno:
I know all about Danny "I can't be bothered with commenting further on this matter" Jowenko.

Can you please tell us where the footage used in the youtube video you posted came from originally?

[apacherose105]

Don't you think someone in the video would remark about the huge honking explosion they just heard? And funny, you never hear what the footage was from. Wouldn't want anyone to find the original, now would you? :rolleyes: And besides, no way a handycam is going to pick up an explosion that clearly. Sounds like it's from a special effects cd.


Exactly, now you're catching on! Could you please tell us where exactly that footage is from? Because it would be nice to see the original, wouldn't it?

I believe one of the firemen says seven is exploding.

I'm a professinoal audio engineer and you can clearly hear the input signal clipping when the explosion occurs and the sound reverberating off of the other buildings. But this is just my opinion.

I want to see the proof of the claim that this explosion sound is added in. Is there any?

[WildCat]

I believe one of the firemen says seven is exploding.

I'm a professinoal audio engineer and you can clearly hear the input signal clipping when the explosion occurs and the sound reverberating off of the other buildings. But this is just my opinion.

I want to see the proof of the claim that this explosion sound is added in. Is there any?
Do you know the source of this video, yes or no? Don't you think that's an important detail?

[apacherose105]

I know all about Danny "I can't be bothered with commenting further on this matter" Jowenko.

Can you please tell us where the footage used in the youtube video you posted came from originally?

The interview first appeared on a Dutch television news program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories (2006). This is the unedited version of it.

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.

But his statements regarding the nature of collapse still stand as legitimate.

[Drudgewire]

Danny Jowekno
:dl:

[apacherose105]

Do you know the source of this video, yes or no? Don't you think that's an important detail?


I do, sorry. The "seven is exploding" footage first appeared in a documentary on a major Italian network (Canale 5).
here's a clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Could someone please prove that the "seven is exploding" footage's audio had been doctored, as someone has claimed? Let's play by the rules here, cmon.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Apache...

Would you agree that an actual engineers ability to detect engineering BS is far superior to your own?

[WildCat]

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.
Yeah, imagine being asked to back up your radical claim about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people! I guess he has better things to do.

I do, sorry. The "seven is exploding" footage first appeared in a documentary on a major Italian network
Unless the Italians made it themselves on 9/11, it didn't first appear there.

Who took the footage, where is it now? This is important to know, don't you think?

[T.A.M.]

my ignore list is going to be getting full soon...

someone let me know if apache decides to provide any critique, analysis, or anything resembling a debate...I think he is trolling. Welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

[apacherose105]

ummm, actually no.

There are thousands of hours of footage from people on the ground on 9/11.
Finding the name of the person who filmed it is probably going to be impossible.

Now could someone please send me the proof that the audio in that video is doctored?

[Brainster]

The interview first appeared on a Dutch television news program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories (2006). This is the unedited version of it.

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.

But his statements regarding the nature of collapse still stand as legitimate.

So you also accept his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolition?

Then how could the plotters be sure that WTC-7 would be sufficiently damaged by the collapse of the two towers that its own collapse would be able to be explained as caused by that damage?

CD of WTC-7 is not something you can believe in a vacuum. You have to believe in CD of the towers and you have to believe that dozens of firefighters and others were lying.

[Pardalis]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

Afb7eUHr64U

[Gravy]

Actually, you have that backwards. The bottom image was used to make the left side of the top image. It was skewed to make it look level. You can tell by the distorted rooftop of the building in front of it at the lower right. This is the kind of thing people here talking about when they ask you to show your work. Was the skewing done properly? The two images were taken from completely different angles and will thus show different things. Just because skewing one image makes it look similar to the other, doesn't mean they are showing the exact same thing. I'm sure some of the more skilled image analysts on this forum can tell you what is right/wrong with this.
Furthermore, as was said before, without timestamps you are unable to determine whether or not the building suffered any extra damage between photos.To be clear for onlookers, the skewing – the "doctoring"– was done by a truther who apparently watches too much CSI, not by NIST.

It seems we have another champion goalpost-mover on our hands. Let me put on my big surprise face.

apacherose, are you an adult? If so, can you please try to act like one?

Third time: try to remember that this forum is frequented by critical thinkers.

[Gravy]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

Afb7eUHr64UThat's the video that convinced me to put Redibis on ignore. He claimed that the fires in WTC 7 weren't even hot enough to break windows. I showed him the video of windows breaking on the east and west sides of the building, and he outright claimed that it wasn't happening.

Just pathetic.

[Pardalis]

That's the video that convinced me to put Redibis on ignore. He claimed that the fires in WTC 7 weren't even hot enough to break windows. I showed him the video of windows breaking on the east and west sides of the building, and he outright claimed that it wasn't happening.

Just pathetic.

Yeah I know, I posted it for him in Diagora's thread and he completely ignored it.

You just can't help someone like that.

[apacherose105]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

Afb7eUHr64U

Did I say it was?

[apacherose105]

To be clear for onlookers, the skewing – the "doctoring"– was done by a truther who apparently watches too much CSI, not by NIST.

It seems we have another champion goalpost-mover on our hands. Let me put on my big surprise face.

apacherose, are you an adult? If so, can you please try to act like one?

Third time: try to remember that this forum is frequented by critical thinkers.

sources, sources, sources.

Cmon, let's play by the same rules here guys.

[WildCat]

There are thousands of hours of footage from people on the ground on 9/11.
Finding the name of the person who filmed it is probably going to be impossible.
Nonsense, there is very little video from that day whose origin isn't known. Especially something this important!

The onus is on the "truth" movement to reveal their source.

[Norseman]

The PDF I linked above is ok, it's conclusions are a little quickly drawn but there does seem to be some upward floor bending. apacherose105, I haven't seen you comment on it but please read it if possible, it resolves these contradictions.

Yes Arie's analysis is quit good, except for the conclusion where he should have added light refraction as the most plausible cause for the bending in the corner area. Instead he tries to imply some slight doctoring of the NYPD photo. The refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage) is due to temperature differences in the air, caused by smoke and hot gases coming up between WTC 7 and the Verizon building. Like what we can see in this photo from the Meridian Plaza fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html

Notice how some of the exterior columns are bending in on the burned out floors/ burning floors, in reality they did not do that, its just the effect of refraction. Photographed from other angles and stages of the fire the effect is not there. The interior of the burned out floors would still be very hot and smoldering at this stage of the fire. That equals a lot of hot gases/air coming from the burned out and burning floors, creating a big temperature difference.

This effect is also apparent in two of the photos at the end of the report on the Meridian plaza fire (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf).

Conclusion, there is no fakery with the NYPD photo. All details are consistent in all the available photos of the corner area. The floors and the window frames are still present. The only thing gone are the corner plates and corner column. The corner windows below floor 14 are hidden by smoke. That should be apperant from the crop I made from the NYPD photo below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1814146fd9aa329ad5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8559)((
(Click for full size)

For a more detailed discussion find my recent posts from the never ending thread "10 story hole in WTC 7".

[apacherose105]

So you also accept his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolition?

Then how could the plotters be sure that WTC-7 would be sufficiently damaged by the collapse of the two towers that its own collapse would be able to be explained as caused by that damage?

CD of WTC-7 is not something you can believe in a vacuum. You have to believe in CD of the towers and you have to believe that dozens of firefighters and others were lying.

Dude, stop throwing conspiracy theories at me.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

YOu can't tell anyone what they 'have to believe'. It doesn't work like that.

[TerryUK]

I do, sorry. The "seven is exploding" footage first appeared in a documentary on a major Italian network (Canale 5).
here's a clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Could someone please prove that the "seven is exploding" footage's audio had been doctored, as someone has claimed? Let's play by the rules here, cmon.

In the above video, it's clear that a sudden, 'startling' audio event such as an explosion, takes place.
Judging by the 'startled' reaction of the guy on the phone, and the way the camera is quickly panned to one side, there has been a explosion.

[apacherose105]

my ignore list is going to be getting full soon...

someone let me know if apache decides to provide any critique, analysis, or anything resembling a debate...I think he is trolling. Welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

I'm trying to debate.

I think you just don't like me because I'm not part of your debunking circle-jerk.

[Pardalis]

Apache, do you think WTC7 was brought down for humanitarian reasons?

[Brainster]

Dude, stop throwing conspiracy theories at me.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

YOu can't tell anyone what they 'have to believe'. It doesn't work like that.

Ah, I apologize. Apparently you are not a controlled demolition of WTC-7 believer? Just a NIST doctored the photos believer?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In the above video, it's clear that a sudden, 'startling' audio event such as an explosion, takes place.
Judging by the 'startled' reaction of the guy on the phone, and the way the camera is quickly panned to one side, there has been a explosion.
Previous discussions on the vid in question. Please make comments in those thread and don't derail this one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67149
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77392&page=7

[Gravy]

sources, sources, sources.

Cmon, let's play by the same rules here guys.Are you kidding? Are you telling us that you don't even know where you got the images that you claim prove that NIST doctored their photo?

I look forward to a thorough explanation of your reasoning. This should be rich. Do explain.

[pomeroo]

Structural engineer and demolition expert named Danny Jowekno:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU


Ah, so you agree with Jowenko that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the impacts of the planes and the ensuing fires?

[RedIbis]

That's the video that convinced me to put Redibis on ignore. He claimed that the fires in WTC 7 weren't even hot enough to break windows. I showed him the video of windows breaking on the east and west sides of the building, and he outright claimed that it wasn't happening.

Just pathetic.

What convinced you to put me on ignore was when I pressed you to present any evidence of a raging inferno in WTC 7. That video is a close up of one corner showing no more than eight windows with fire in them. If you think that's a building engulfed in flames you're delusional.

If you say that we can't see the raging fires because they are mostly in the interior of the building, heating the structural steel, you are making an assumption without evidence.

To be clear, I was pointing out where the glass was not broken one floor above or below the fires, suggesting that the fire was not very hot nor extensive.

[gumboot]

Norseman is quite right, the perception is an error of photographic interpretation.

Let's look at the photos:

Which was is fake and which one is real?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg

In the left hand image shadows from the WFC cast on the corner section make it appear that the building is more damaged than it is. In addition Norseman's explanation of distortion due to heat is a very plausible one.

Note that the right hand picture is misleading. The corner in question is actually obscured by smoke on the right hand edge of the frame. I wonder if this picture is trying to be intentionally misleading - we can see the wall of one of the WFC buildings on the left of the frame, which can give the illusion that it's the other wall of WTC7, thus presenting a perfectly visible and totally unharmed corner. This is not the case. The damaged corner of WTC7 is covered by black smoke in this photograph.

the above image was used in this one below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg

Here's an important point. The above image is the original. The left hand frame of the previous image is taken from this, and (presumably) skewed to make it square. The problem is skewing the image doesn't correct for perspective, so you end up with a highly distorted image, and things like floors that seem to bend upwards. Significant dishonesty at play here.


here's another contradicting image

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg

And here's the original image that the right hand frame of the first image was taken from. From this image it's much easier to see what I meant about the WFC building. Note the shadows on the wall of WTC7 from the smoke, and how they obscure a clear view of the lower corner.

the images where the lower corner of the building are scooped out appear to be doctored.

The only doctoring that was done was by the person that did the analysis. The photos are genuine.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

What convinced you to put me on ignore was when I pressed you to present any evidence of a raging inferno in WTC 7. That video is a close up of one corner showing no more than eight windows with fire in them. If you think that's a building engulfed in flames you're delusional.

If you say that we can't see the raging fires because they are mostly in the interior of the building, heating the structural steel, you are making an assumption without evidence.

To be clear, I was pointing out where the glass was not broken one floor above or below the fires, suggesting that the fire was not very hot nor extensive.


What motive would the FDNY have for lying about the condition of WTC7?

-Gumboot

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What convinced you to put me on ignore was when I pressed you to present any evidence of a raging inferno in WTC 7.

You are lying.

Sorry Red, I know it's not "polite" to level accusations when involved in debate, but IMO this is all on you.

Here is a copy/paste of just a fraction of the evidence Gravy has posted: (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

First responder accounts

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.

He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.

Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.

Q: Would that be towards West Street?

A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110469.PDF

28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)

30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html

31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

You can call Gravy a liar, you can call the firefighters liars and you can lie yourself, all you want.

But sane, reasonable people are going to believe the firefighters over you, every single time.

[RedIbis]

What is it with this forum and throwing the word "liar" around?

Unless someone has a quote of my using that word, I request we get a bit more specific.

[A W Smith]

Yes those photos were "doctored'. They were doctored here. Right on these forums. Around april 4 of this year. I remember because we were debating a sock who eventually got banned. I remember mentioning the skew angle needed to align the floors. I can only go back 300 posts in my history. Does anyone else remember that thread? There were several posts with images similar to those above in that thread.

[beachnut]

What is it with this forum and throwing the word "liar" around?

Unless someone has a quote of my using that word, I request we get a bit more specific.
A factual post. Wow. You, when you repeat the lies of 9/11 truth over and over; you become a liar. You could look it up and try not to meet the definition continuously. It is a simple word.

But you only support the 9/11 truth movement with talk, and questions that imply passive support. No facts, no research, no evidence seems to be revealed, no expert statements; You are not much of a liar, you are a soft supporter for not much of any clear cut ideas on 9/11. I am sorry, you are not a big liar, and possibly only in the other thread did you make the mistake of being close to meeting the definition on purpose.

[WildCat]

In the above video, it's clear that a sudden, 'startling' audio event such as an explosion, takes place.
Judging by the 'startled' reaction of the guy on the phone, and the way the camera is quickly panned to one side, there has been a explosion.
No, it's clear that he's reacting to the fireman yelling at him.

Any luck on the source of that video Terry? Surely, all you crack researchers in the "truth" movement have identified and spoken to the person who filmed that, as well as the firemen?

[Gravy]

You are lying.

Sorry Red, I know it's not "polite" to level accusations when involved in debate, but IMO this is all on you.

Here is a copy/paste of just a fraction of the evidence Gravy has posted: (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

You can call Gravy a liar, you can call the firefighters liars and you can lie yourself, all you want.

But sane, reasonable people are going to believe the firefighters over you, every single time.Of course he's lying, and thanks for getting my back. Obviously, he knows that making crap up doesn't fly here. He's just a troll here for attention.

These fires weren't even hot enough to break the glass above the fires

Your retraction is expected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

You still haven't gotten a single thing right. When do you plan to change your behavior?

Retraction? In that excellent video, several times the fires are shown in about 13 windows at the most. The glass all around the fires is in tact.

This incredible denialist even denies that windows are bursting out of WTC 7 from the heat on the east and west sides.

What the hell would make a human being behave that way?

Yes, those fires sure were small in WTC 7!
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires


So you guys are actually going to say that there is fire in more than thirteen of those windows, and the glass in the windows around that fire zone are busted out?

I think I understand the confusion now. You guys are saying the windows with flames are the busted out windows. Oh yes that's true. My point, which should have been understood all along, is that those 13 windows are it.

A fire which can't even bust the windows above the fire can't be hot enough to cause the eutectic reaction.

So it's all a big game to you, huh? Just a joke? That's sad.

Get well, and goodbye.Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U)

[Crungy]

Let's not forget this sober letter from Chief Nigro.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103

[RedIbis]

Of course he's lying, and thanks for getting my back. Obviously, he knows that making crap up doesn't fly here. He's just a troll here for attention.











Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U)


I appreciate you reposting my position. What exactly was the point of that except to illustrate your irrational reaction?

[cmcaulif]

To be clear, I was pointing out where the glass was not broken one floor above or below the fires, suggesting that the fire was not very hot nor extensive.

red, when 7 was hit with debris, I think we can agree that at the very least a great deal of windows were broken on the South Side, which would allow for a plenty of air to flow into the building and feed a fire.

In the video from a few posts up, these windows were not on the face impacted with debris, and were blown out by heat alone, which certainly indicates a hot fire. Also, it appears this video was taken at the time when firefighting operations were still going on, so the building would have been allowed to burn for several hours after this was taken.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What is it with this forum and throwing the word "liar" around?

Unless someone has a quote of my using that word, I request we get a bit more specific.


You know quite well that there are numerous ways of calling someone a liar without using the word "liar". You've used at least one of them yourself. Would you prefer that we also use those methods, since you seem to be so sensitive to "the 'L' word"?

I appreciate you reposting my position. What exactly was the point of that except to illustrate your irrational reaction?


That is complete, unadulterated BS. You made the claim that the fires weren't hot enough to break glass. Gravy proved you wrong. Rather than retracting your statement, you rather clumsily attempted to move the goal posts.

You really think this nonsense makes you look good?

[chillzero]

Previous discussions on the vid in question. Please make comments in those thread and don't derail this one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67149
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77392&page=7

Exactly right.


Please keep this thread on the relevant topic of the photographs, and move the explosion video discussion to one of the existing threads. If you are unable to do so, this thread can be placed on moderated status, to ensure no further derailing.

[WildCat]

Let's not forget this sober letter from Chief Nigro.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103
He's a liar and a government shill, right RedIbis?

[RedIbis]

He's a liar and a government shill, right RedIbis?

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[A W Smith]

I found my original post about the deskewed image from back in April
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2484676&postcount=1721
we were debating miragememories who was not banned but just took his leave.

[WildCat]

Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Then would you care to comment on Nigro's statement? Is it factual RedIbis?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Then would you care to comment on Nigro's statement? Is it factual RedIbis?

Add the other firefighters from the Gravy page I posted to that question as well.

How would you be able to explain how WTC7 wasn't severely damaged or burning very much without calling nearly the entire FDNY liars?

[RedIbis]

Add the other firefighters from the Gravy page I posted to that question as well.

How would you be able to explain how WTC7 wasn't severely damaged or burning very much without calling nearly the entire FDNY liars?

In other threads I commented on the collection of quotes presented on Gravy's pages. When I started asking specific questions, Gravy put me on ignore and ended the discussion.

Many of the firefighters report getting the word, or that the word had come down that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Read these quotes carefully. Very few of them report massive fires. Some do, but most of the firefighter quotes report that someone (turns out it comes from the OEM) had passed the word that the bldg would soon collapse.

My other observation is that quoting firefighters, first responders and others on the scene presents a very wide range of experiences. If we are going to take reports of massive fires into account, we must also take reports of explosions and other events which don't square with the official story.

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.

[RedIbis]

red, when 7 was hit with debris, I think we can agree that at the very least a great deal of windows were broken on the South Side, which would allow for a plenty of air to flow into the building and feed a fire.

In the video from a few posts up, these windows were not on the face impacted with debris, and were blown out by heat alone, which certainly indicates a hot fire. Also, it appears this video was taken at the time when firefighting operations were still going on, so the building would have been allowed to burn for several hours after this was taken.

1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.
2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.

[WildCat]

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.
Let's see:
1. The firefighters observed that WTC was "fully involved" and had massive damage from the tower falling on it.
2. They decide that since they have no water to fight the fire, they will create a collapse zone around it and keep everyone away.
3. Three hours later, WTC 7 indeed collapses. Without any sounds of explosion, and in stages. Just as they feared it would.

You were saying? :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.
2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.

hit refreah or the enter key after following this link
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg
or from this page
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
a composite
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

[RedIbis]

hit refreah or the enter key after following this link
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg

Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.
Even if there is no such picture, that is not evidence that there was not an inferno.

[RedIbis]

3. Three hours later, WTC 7 indeed collapses. Without any sounds of explosion, and in stages. Just as they feared it would.
:

What exactly is the logic behind the canard "without any sounds"?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What exactly is the logic behind the canard "without any sounds"?
What's the with cherry-picking and not quoting the entire phrase used, "Without any sounds of explosion"?

[RedIbis]

Even if there is no such picture, that is not evidence that there was not an inferno.

If there is no such evidence, why would you assume there was an inferno?

[A W Smith]

Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.


the south side had a multi floor atrium at its concourse level. Why would there even be flames At the windows?

And if you cannot see the building because of the smoke. Even on a bright sunny day. How could you
see flames behind the smoke?

[RedIbis]

What's the with cherry-picking and not quoting the entire phrase used, "Without any sounds of explosion"?

That's fine. I wasn't trying to cherrypick. I still want to know the answer of the question as you phrased it.

[RedIbis]

the south side had a multi floor atrium at its concourse level. Why would there even be flames At the windows?

Because according to you guys, the building is engulfed in an inferno.

[Quad4_72]

Despite the cliche, where there's smoke there's fire, I'd like to see actual fire.

This pic has been presented many times as proof of the "inferno," but I've yet to see a pic of WTC 7 engulfted in flames.

Do the NUMEROUS firefighter eyewitness accounts mean anything?

[Quad4_72]

Because according to you guys, the building is engulfed in an inferno.

That's actually according to firefighters, eyewitnesses, and visual evidence.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If there is no such evidence, why would you assume there was an inferno?
Nice try at shifting the goalposts. You fail. Let's recap the stunt you just tried:

1) Photo is presented
2) RedIbis is not satisfied with said photo and demands a photo showing "WTC 7 engulfted in flames"
3) It is pointed out that lack of such a photo has no bearing on whether there was an inferno or not.
4) RedIbis generalizes this and suggests that there is no such photo, and that there is no other source of evidence to support said conclusion.

Here's an easy one for you RedIbis, present a single piece of evidence that is factual, and objective that falsifies the hypothesis that WTC 7 experienced an "inferno". Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence. You have to use what evidence there is, be it photographic, eye-witness accounts, etc to do this. "Go Team Venture!"

[cmcaulif]

1) Please don't hesitate to post video or photographs of the south side.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

for comparison, here is the bankers trust building:


http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg


There are many windows blown out, and the same will have happened to building 7, likely even worse given the first photo posted. This means that there would be good ventilation conditions for a hot fire. All of the windows in the video were blown out from heat alone however, that is quite significant.

2) I agree that timestamping video and photos would be enormously helpful. Rather than make an assumption, please post any indication of the time. Thanks.

ehh, I did suggest a way to indicate the time, I'm not sure what you are referring to is an assumption. Firefighters and other rescue workers are seen in the video near to the building and they are actively continuing their operations. According to retired FDNY chief Daniel Nigro (http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro) all operations were halted and a collapse perimeter, which is equal to the height of the building plus half the height of the building IIRC was cleared around 7 three hours before collapse. So this indicates that the video was taken at least three hours before collapse occurred.

[RedIbis]

Here's an easy one for you RedIbis, present a single piece of evidence that is factual, and objective that falsifies the hypothesis that WTC 7 experienced an "inferno". Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence. You have to use what evidence there is, be it photographic, eye-witness accounts, etc to do this. "Go Team Venture!"

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

But first I want to call your attention to something. You said, "Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence."
Isn't that my point? You lack a photograph of WTC 7 engulfed in flames, and you're right, the lack of a photograph is not evidence.

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg

[Newtons Bit]

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg

Can you tell me what's happening in that photo on the bottom 20 floors?

Given that the building collapse FROM THE BOTTOM, it might be important to know what's happening on the bottom floors, don't you think?

[RedIbis]

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

for comparison, here is the bankers trust building:


http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
.



I always found that abc news photo of WTC 7 fascinating. This photo deserves its own thread, so I'll refrain from discussing the prevailing theories about what created such symetrical damage, but to the point, even this very interesting photo does not show a building engulfed in an inferno.

Similarly, the Bankers Trust building is not badly burned, and although it suffered damage, it didn't collapse.

[RedIbis]

Can you tell me what's happening in that photo on the bottom 20 floors?

Given that the building collapse FROM THE BOTTOM, it might be important to know what's happening on the bottom floors, don't you think?

As an exercise in objectivity, I'm going to wait and see how long it takes for a regular here to correct you on an obvious error.

[e^n]

These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.
Wait just a second, which fires are you referring to here? Plenty of windows were broken which were not directly impacted, hasn't Gravy called you on this before?

As an exercise in objectivity, I'm going to wait and see how long it takes for a regular here to correct you on an obvious error.
A wild swing here but I'm going to go for 'East Penthouse'? If so, please read the NIST interim report more thoroughly.

[cmcaulif]

I always found that abc news photo of WTC 7 fascinating. This photo deserves its own thread, so I'll refrain from discussing the prevailing theories about what created such symetrical damage, but to the point, even this very interesting photo does not show a building engulfed in an inferno.

I never said it did, I was talking about broken windows, you asked for a picture of the SS and I posted one. The quotes from the first responders saying the building was 'fully involved' came from much later in the day.

Similarly, the Bankers Trust building is not badly burned, and although it suffered damage, it didn't collapse.

well the bankers trust suffered a partial collapse, which was arrested. There was also not a large fire in it in the first place. My point was to show that even ignoring structural damage, the fact that 7 was hit with so much debris makes for ideal conditions for an office fire, since the temperature in a fire is partially dependent on ventilation.

[beachnut]

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg
I cheated, I talked to people who saw WTC7 on fire out of control. You use one photo. Oops you messed up. The building burned all day until it collapsed. That is what fire does, destroys steel. You have not researched this topic, you just make up small talk. If this is the best you have, you have lost this debate, you did not even answer the question properly. Do you understand the question? Ask your mommy to help you.

You are cherry picking photos, you need to do better if you are going to show no fire.

Next time do not show a photo of a building with 500 feet of smoke pouring out of the building all day long. Smoke? You need to watch some old Bond films for the key line evidence.

Funny stuff, you claim no big fire, but I see smoke pouring out of the building all day long. You debunk your very post with your own evidence. (now all you need is some witnesses who were there who can support your ideas; you will fail)

[RedIbis]

I never said it did, I was talking about broken windows, you asked for a picture of the SS and I posted one. The quotes from the first responders saying the building was 'fully involved' came from much later in the day.
.

Fair enough. Can you please post a photo of the south side, later in the day when it is fully engulfed in an inferno?

So far, neither the north nor south side appear to be engulfed in much fire.

[RedIbis]

Ask your mommy to help you.

]

Is this really necessary?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Is this really necessary?


Focus, RedIbis. Focus... Report the insults, address the legitimate points. You've got a long way to go.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Many of the firefighters report getting the word, or that the word had come down that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Yes, "COLLAPSE", not demolition.

Read these quotes carefully. Very few of them report massive fires.

Nearly all of them report massive fires.

You claim to have read the testimonies Gravy compiled yet claim that they say something oppoiste of what they did say.

Are you lying about having read them at all, or lying about what they said?

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts,

That's not true at all. You have contested the eyewitness reports at every turn. You refuse to believe what they say.

but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.

You don't have any of that on your side either.

[beachnut]

Is this really necessary?
I am sorry. I thought you were a kid. I thought after you posted a photo of a 47 story building smoking more than any fire I have ever seen before 9/11; I thought your mommy could help you understand why steel fails in fire. I am sorry, I have no idea how old you are, but you are posting like you are a very young person with no real experience or knowledge about 9/11 or the systems involved. My mistake; I am sorry again, it is wrong to think you are 7 or 8. I work with 4 and 5th graders, and they show much more knowledge and experience in matters like this. It is amazing how my class ran a simulated space mission. Based on your posts, I thought you were very young. Sorry, but I thought you needed some guidance and help.

I did not mean an insult, it was advice; I still ask my mommy for help with the big issues.

[cmcaulif]

Fair enough. Can you please post a photo of the south side, later in the day when it is fully engulfed in an inferno?

So far, neither the north nor south side appear to be engulfed in much fire.

To my knowledge, there are not any photos of the south side at the time of collapse. Here are a few first responders who give testimonies that indicate that they are speaking at the time of the collapse, or thereabouts however:

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

They also say things like fully involved in fire, completely involved in fire, and fire on virtually every floor.

It seems reasonable that firemen would have been able to see fire in a large number of floors from the south side given the amount of smoke seen blowing out of the south side in your photo, as well as other photos at the time of collapse

[Corsair 115]

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak...And what about the other side of the building, you know, the side not seen in the photo? Notice the large amount of smoke behind the building? Might that be indicative of something?

[R.Mackey]

I'm curious where RedIbis thinks the smoke came from, if there had been no fire... The plume was comparable to that from the WTC Towers themselves.

It certainly wasn't left over smoke, not after so many hours.

[Slayhamlet]

I'm curious where RedIbis thinks the smoke came from, if there had been no fire... The plume was comparable to that from the WTC Towers themselves.

It certainly wasn't left over smoke, not after so many hours.

Fog machines. Lots and lots of fog machines.

Or maybe dry ice. Lots and lots of dry ice.

[Disbelief]

I don't doubt the sincerity of eyewitness accounts, but they are invariably less conclusive then say, physical evidence.

So why do you hold Rodriguez up as a beacon of truth? His eyewitness account, no matter how it has changed, is gospel for you in spite off all of the physical evidence. Now, the FDNY eyewitnesses are trumped by a few pictures.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You're right. That is easy. Are you serious? All I have to do is post a photo of WTC 7 not engulfed in an inferno?

But first I want to call your attention to something. You said, "Now, don't try to be slippery. A lack of a photograph is not evidence."
Isn't that my point? You lack a photograph of WTC 7 engulfed in flames, and you're right, the lack of a photograph is not evidence.

This is a bit of a problem for you since 9/11 is arguably the most video and photographed event in history.

The only pics and videos I've seen do not show WTC 7 engulfed in an inferno. At the most two floors, of no more than 15 windows have flames in them.
These fires were not even hot enough to bust the windows above them, thus the fires were not extremely hot, nor extensive.

This very common photo shows WTC 7 just before collapse. There's not enough flame in this photo to cook a steak.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7b4collapse.jpg
Way to demonstrate a complete, and utter lack of reading comprehension on your part. Let me help you out some by taking this to an even more granular level:
You are making several claims, first:
P1) If there is an inferno in WTC 7, then it must be visible in photos
P2) It is not visible in photos
C) There is no inferno

Please substantiate P1

Second:
P1) If there is an inferno in WTC 7, then all the windows must be broken out
P2) Not all the windows are broken out
C) There is no inferno

Please substantiate P1