How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7?

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
In the case of Building 7 the "body of evidence" (unfalsifiable) is the onset and progress of the fires themselves, which were still finding new combustible areas as the building collapsed. Over the years, even I have been worn down a little by the truther notion of "sporadic and insubstantial fires" but today I saw a new view of the WTC7 collapse which showed billowing smoke prior to collapse, which was obviously the product of a fire that was nowhere near "sporadic and insubstantial".

If you are referring to this video:


From this post: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-uniqueness-of-the-wtc7-collapse.1972/page-14#post-69911
It should be noted the fire and much of the smoke is WTC 5, not 7.

The fires in 7 were sporadic and insubstantial and no matter how many times debunkers accidentally confuse the fires of 5 with 7, 7's fires will not get any bigger or less sporadic and it is entirely inconceivable that any credibility whatsoever can ever be given to the idea that at any time 7 was "entirely involved in fire"... because it never ever was, no matter how much debunkers would love it to be the case!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But that of course is not the only shot we have of smoke from WTC7.









 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


In the video I was referring to, (Post 1), the fire is clearly WTC 5 and also much, if not most of the smoke is also from 5. Do you accept that?

The fire at the bottom of the screen is WTC5, yes, however given the way the wind was blowing (From the NW, towards the SE) the smoke is mostly from WTC7, blowing towards WTC5

 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
That was quick! But I have nothing to add. Oh, yes I do...

Oxy, there was some smoke from Building Five, of course. But the rest of it looked exactly as one might expect from the back of Mick's still pictures to me, and the puff of dark smoke (after 8:00) was WTC7's internal collapse beginning, surely, as the smoke volume got itself pumped out of the collapsing structure?

Edit: Mick, thanks for that. A picture and 1000 words. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's quite clear from this video that the smoke is blowing TOWARDS WTC5, and not coming from it:

Reference for smoke direction a few hours earlier
WTC1 viewed from due North:


WTC1 viewed from due West
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That was quick! But I have nothing to add. Oh, yes I do...

Oxy, there was some smoke from Building Five, of course. But the rest of it looked exactly as one might expect from the back of Mick's still pictures to me, and the puff of dark smoke (after 8:00) was WTC7's internal collapse beginning, surely, as the smoke volume got itself pumped out of the collapsing structure?

Edit: Mick, thanks for that. A picture and 1000 words. :)
There was clearly smoke from a number of buildings and remains of buildings. i.e. remains of 1 & 2 and also 5 & 6 which were all behind 7.

The smoke can clearly be seen blowing away from 6 across to 5 & mixing with smoke from 7 which clearly had smoke coming out of the side of it. It should be noted that the smoke emitting from the side of 7 would be the cumulative smoke derived from all fires in 7, (inc smouldering remnants which although not ablaze will continue to smoke voluminously). It can clearly be seen that 7 was acting like a lateral chimney as the wind blew through the building and took all the smoke with it out the side.

Here is 5, (mislabeled as 7) and large amounts of smoke. The building on fire in the OP video and directly behind 7.



Here is WTC 3 on fire, also behind 7



Here you can see huge amounts of smoke from WTC 6



http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_7_huge_amounts_of_smoke_came_from_wtc_5_6.htm

The pics that Mick posted are clearly conglomerated smoke from all these buildings.

Here is voluminous smoke from a small bonfire.



The video he posted is far more representative of the smoke emitting from 7 which can clearly be seen is nowhere near as volumous as previously portrayed.


Stop it at 08 and analyse it. No visible flame. Relatively wispy smoke. Obvious that the wind is running through the building and driving the smoke out like a chimney effect.

Again I say... It is obviously untrue that the building was "fully involved in fire". That is clearly shown on the north and south faces. It is undeniable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again I say... It is obviously untrue that the building was "fully involved in fire". That is clearly shown on the north and south faces. It is undeniable.

It certainly is. Who said that? In Jazzy's quote he said: 'nowhere near "sporadic and insubstantial"'

This image indicates which smoke comes from WTC7.

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That's WTC4, not the building in the OP, and nowhere near WTC7
I thought we agreed before that it was 5.

Never mind. Even if it is 4, that is directly behind 5 and would have added to the smoke of 5, which we all know was a complete inferno and remained standing even after massive hits from debris, (some straight through the middle of it)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It certainly is. Who said that? In Jazzy's quote he said: 'nowhere near "sporadic and insubstantial"'

This image indicates which smoke comes from WTC7.


Yes that is a good picture and fairly represents the smoke IMO.

Do you accept the 'chimney effect'?

Chief Nigro and others have said about 7 "fully involved in fire", pleased you accept that it evidentially wasn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I thought we agreed before that it was 5.

Never mind. Even if it is 4, that is directly behind 5 and would have added to the smoke of 5, which we all know was a complete inferno and remained standing even after massive hits from debris, (some straight through the middle of it)


Bit of a stretch there. It's 900 feet away and it's downwind.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes that is a good picture and fairly represents the smoke IMO.

Do you accept the 'chimney effect'?

What's that exactly? You just seem to say that wind is blowing smoke out of 7. What do you mean exactly? How would that indicate less fires.

Chief Nigro and others have said about 7 "fully involved in fire", pleased you accept that it evidentially wasn't.

In what context? Can you give some quotes in context? And since when does that mean "every floor is on fire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What's that exactly? You just seem to say that wind is blowing smoke out of 7. What do you mean exactly? How would that indicate less fires.
The chimney effect seems quite a straight forward rationale. No one disputes that at least 'sporadic and 'normal' office fires which lasted around 20 mins and moved on to new sources of fuel. Even burned out sections would still be smoking.

Clearly as the smoke is being 'blown out' in one direction, the smoke is obviously amalgamated from all fires and smoulderings and that is reflected in the 'concentrated' smoke emissions... like out of a chimney.


In what context? Can you give some quotes in context? And since when does that mean "every floor is on fire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
Content from External Source
This puts the statement in context.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fdny-chief-daniel-nigros-statement-on-wtc7.2366/

Would be good, as the thread is locked, if you would add a link to it directing here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nigro said (from that thread's OP)
numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
Content from External Source
I don't think anyone now things that WTC7 was fully engulfed on fire on every floor, and I don't think anyone is claiming that. So you are putting up a straw man.

Looking at the smoke though, you could certainly see how people working to the south of the building might have got that impression that every floor was on fire. It LOOKS like there's smoke coming from every floor, and every floor is damaged. Take this guy for example.



I think NIST's assessment of the fires is the one you should be critiquing (start a new thread if you want to). Not some individual impressions from 2001.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The chimney effect seems quite a straight forward rationale. No one disputes that at least 'sporadic and 'normal' office fires which lasted around 20 mins and moved on to new sources of fuel. Even burned out sections would still be smoking.

Clearly as the smoke is being 'blown out' in one direction, the smoke is obviously amalgamated from all fires and smoulderings and that is reflected in the 'concentrated' smoke emissions... like out of a chimney.

I really don't understand this "blown out". Why is is "concentrated" on nearly every floor? How does the wind get into the upper floors to blow the smoke out? Maybe you could draw a diagram of what you think is happening, say that the point in time of the photo above?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Should the topic be is the smoke *in that video* from wtc5?
Otherwise the answer to that question is clearly, 'no'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
thread title changed to:
How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7?

Depending on time, of course. But "quite a lot" seems reasonable.

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just some more photos for context. From FOIA/Release 4, 42A003 - 2of3


 
Last edited:
Top