WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I imagine because he did an image search, then used a direct link to the image:



The pic is still up, but they have fixed the caption.

Still under the main heading of WTC 7 Collapse 5.20pm

Much smaller, 'Picture of wtc 5 raging'

It is still misleading... and I do suggest 'deliberately so'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you back that up Mick?

I suggest there is a big difference between disputed facts and patently false facts. Just because you dispute something, does not make it false.

Yes. There's lots of people on AE911 who say that the towers fell at free fall speed, when they did not. That is indisputable false.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=990899
The collapse of a single structure under the circumstances of the events of 9/11/01 is improbable. Three steel structures collapsing vertically at free fall speed, one not even impacted, is inconceivable.
My training and experience tells me that Tower 7 should have failed asymmetrically, if at all.
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=984177
Traveled the 3D and 4D worlds and understand the law of physics - these buildings came down in free fall speed, therefore, there was no resistance, therefore the buildings were not "pancaking".
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=981887
That THREE buildings collapses in free fall speed same day same site is extremely weird...
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995872
All my doubts on the official version of 911 building collapses arrive at the moment I understood that the common point between the three building collapses was : free fall speed.
Content from External Source


http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986800
Although I am not an expert in demolition, there is no doubt in my mind that the upper portion of the WTC tower(s) that apparently collapsed by fire could not bring down -along a perfect vertical axis- the other remaining officially undamaged structure of the tower(s) at free fall speed causing total and even destruction (pulverization) of the building . This is pure physics. As a technician I do not accept the “pancake-fall” official version which utterly contradicts the logic of physics.
Content from External Source
And several hundred more similar examples.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I posted a picture in error, and acknowledged the error. The picture was incorrectly labelled.

Is there a suggestion I posted it with an intention to decieve? Or are you suggeting that I found the picture and posted it because it reinforced my argument, the discussion being what constitutes 'piddling' fires?

None of the above. The suggestion is that you've got preconceived ideas about what happened but haven't done due diligence. Which is a polite way to say it. You don't even know what building you're looking at in a photo you present as your evidence of severe fire in Bldg 7. You just looked at the headline and pic - like most people do (and all good propagandists know). It bolstered the idea you alteady had - and that mostly based on faith rather than knowledge, clearly.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Still under the main heading of WTC 7 Collapse 5.20pm

Much smaller, 'Picture of wtc 5 raging'

It is still misleading... and I do suggest 'deliberately so'.

Of course you do. But you are naturally suspicious, are you not?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes. There's lots of people on AE911 who say that the towers fell at free fall speed, when they did not. That is indisputable false.

There is dispute over this issue. All three buildings fell at free fall acceleration at some point.

Hardly the same as posting a different building raging and claiming it as 7, especially as the one that was totally engulfed didn't even collapse like 7 and had to be pulled down afterwards. :cool:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
None of the above. The suggestion is that you've got preconceived ideas about what happened but haven't done due diligence. Which is a polite way to say it. You don't even know what building you're looking at in a photo you present as your evidence of severe fire in Bldg 7. You just looked at the headline and pic - like most people do (and all good propagandists know). It bolstered the idea you alteady had - and that mostly based on faith rather than knowledge, clearly.

Lee, you've presented evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory several times that proved to be wrong. People make mistakes. This is a minor one. Your (and Oxy's) continued insistence that is significant is only demonstrating the lack of any real evidence.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
the upper portion of the WTC tower(s) that apparently collapsed by fire could not bring down -along a perfect vertical axis- the other remaining officially undamaged structure of the tower(s) at free fall speed causing total and even destruction (pulverization) of the building . This is pure physics. As a technician I do not accept the “pancake-fall” official version which utterly contradicts the logic of physics.
Content from External Source

But all you need to do is preface free fall with the word 'near' and it's absolutely right.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Well it is very interesting that it is still on the link and has not been taken down or re labelled.

Must just be a simple error.

How long has it been there? Only 2 years... leave it a while longer and it will be an absolute indisputable fact.

Perhaps someone should contact them and ask why they are putting up bunk?

Are there any "truther" sites with errors purveyed as fact??

Why are you not equally indignant about them?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is dispute over this issue. All three buildings fell at free fall acceleration at some point.

No they didn't. Even AE911 says they were just "near" free fall. The message has just not percolated down.

How about closer to home. Grieves just posted a video (which many other people post) that he thought showed both towers still standing at 0:20, and an inexplicable big cloud of dust rising from WTC6:


But it doesn't.

People occasionally make mistakes. I'm SURE there are many people on AE911 who made the same mistake Grieves made.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Are there any "truther" sites with errors purveyed as fact??

Why are you not equally indignant about them?

I have complained where I find bunk, no matter where. The point of seeking the truth is to find the truth. We all make mistakes... that is not he issue but if it is a known blatant falsehood that is not corrected that is wrong. I have been called a shill myself... it is not only you that gets it.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee, you've presented evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory several times that proved to be wrong. People make mistakes. This is a minor one. Your (and Oxy's) continued insistence that is significant is only demonstrating the lack of any real evidence.

Mick, you've made presentations that have proved to be false. Several times. Don't make me dig them up again. I haven't made any 'continued insistence' that it's so significant, this picture and headline business - I've commented a couple of times - might be more accurate. There's plenty more obvious pointers to the 911 crimes. It's just another fact; you fight over all of them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, you've made presentations that have proved to be false. Several times. Don't make me dig them up again. I haven't made any 'continued insistence' that it's so significant, this picture and headline business - I've commented a couple of times - might be more accurate. There's plenty more obvious pointers to the 911 crimes. It's just another fact; you fight over all of them.

Yes I've made lots of mistakes. But I take pride in admitting that I made mistakes and fixing them as quickly as possible.

I'm not fighting anything here. I just felt the issue with the photo needed clarifying. Now we know exactly what the facts are. Oxy continues to find it suspicious, but we'll just have to leave it at that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But all you need to do is preface free fall with the word 'near' and it's absolutely right.

All you have to do is change "7" to "4" and the caption is correct. :)

The error is compounded they then say that this meant there was no resistance, and hence the floors must have been removed. All demonstrably false.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999872
It would take that same top around 9.5 seconds to fall that distance in air, on 9/11 it took roughly the same time to fall through a steel and concrete structure.This is impossible. It would have had to have had infinite mass, which it clearly didn't, or else the lower structure must have had zero resistance, another impossibility unless the resistance of the steel column's was removed prior to the top falling on them.

So how can that have been??
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=974097
Demolition is the only logical and reasonable explanation. The free fall must have zero resistance which means the floors below are completely missing during the collapse. The complete pulverization of the floors could only be achieved by violent explosion.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Race with Gravity.

NIST even accept 7 collapsed at free fall for a few seconds so that is not disputed.

I thought NIST admitted free fall on 1 & 2 as well but even if they didn't it is virtually undoubted that at least part of the fall was at free fall.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Or another example of something demonstrably false, the notion of "pyroclastic flow", which is just the dust from the collapsed building being pushed away.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995656
More importantly, all three buildings exhibited pyroclastic flows that are virtually identical to volcanic pyroclastic flows. The only way that you can have pyroclastic flows that (at least in one case) flow out over the Hudson river is to have tremendous energy which could only come from tremendous heat and enegy that explosives deliver.
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=983145
What convinces me that the Trade Center buildings were destroyed by demolition is 1) the "free fall" rapidity 2) pyroclastic clouds of powdered cement and the enormous amount of explosive energy necessary to cause it,
Content from External Source
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=966077
The collapse of the buildings on 9/11 can only be attributed to controlled demolition. The free-fall speeds and concomitant, pyroclastic flows cannot occur otherwise, certainly not from petroleum-based fires incapable of producing sustained temperatures necessary to melt the steel columns that supported the structures. That there were explosions in the buildings BEFORE the airplanes struck is a matter of both credible, eyewitness testimony and seismic records.
Content from External Source
There you go. Reasonable people can make mistakes (note the last one: explosions before the planes hit?)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Race with Gravity.

NIST even accept 7 collapsed at free fall for a few seconds so that is not disputed.

I thought NIST admitted free fall on 1 & 2 as well but even if they didn't it is virtually undoubted that at least part of the fall was at free fall.


I feel pretty sure none of the AE911 truthers I quoted had a half second video analysis of the pressure wave blowing out windows in mind.

Feel free to start a new thread about that video if you like.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I don't think anyone suggested you knowingly posted a fake pic to back up your argument. I certainly did not.

I noted you are a debunker and an officer in the British army, an explosives expert and have been on diplomatic briefings/liaisons or such like, (from your posts), and yet you still posted it as a backup for your argument that 'fires raged in 7', (which I dispute).

The point being, that if you are misled even with your background and interest, how many not so well informed people have been misled by false, (and very powerful and emotive), information even though the site was evidentially advised about the serious error as far back at least as Feb 2011.

I'm actually doing this in between tasks, and while I'm waiting for information, so when I posted that picture, I did so in haste. I am not conducting a detailed post mortem here, rather taking part in a discussion. The purpose of the picture was to discuss the notion of 'piddling' fires and googled 'WTC7 Fires' and posted the incorrectly labelled picture.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
None of the above. The suggestion is that you've got preconceived ideas about what happened but haven't done due diligence. Which is a polite way to say it. You don't even know what building you're looking at in a photo you present as your evidence of severe fire in Bldg 7. You just looked at the headline and pic - like most people do (and all good propagandists know). It bolstered the idea you alteady had - and that mostly based on faith rather than knowledge, clearly.

No, I posted in haste and did not conduct due diligence. I cannot really be more contrite than that can I?
 
Top