Smrekar "housekeeping", part 2, merged Options

[Smrekar]

Thanks for the compilation (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I have an issue with it, though. In several other sources (ex.: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....howtopic=13860; AE911truth presentation, etc) it is clearly stated that the fires in the WTC building 7 were very minor and could not and did not cause a collapse. While I certainly agree with them, in this compilation every single clip shows heavy smoke coming from this very building. It can't be smoke from the demolition of the twin towers, because this happened some 9 hours after their collapse, and the smoke cleared pretty quickly after the collapse of the building 7. If it came from the demolition of the twin towers, it certainly wouldn't dissipate after another source of smoke - building 7 - was added.

It certainly seems rather odd, and I'm not sure who to believe any more. It seems rather impossible for so many cameras and eyewitnesses to be involved in the conspiracy, but the huge volume of material and experts and eyewitnesses claiming otherwise can't be ignored either.

Your thoughts?

[dMz]

I have an issue with it, though. In several other sources (ex.: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....howtopic=13860; AE911truth presentation, etc) it is clearly stated that the fires in the WTC building 7 were very minor and could not and did not cause a collapse. While I certainly agree with them, in this compilation every single clip shows heavy smoke coming from this very building.

Hi Smrekar,

I'm not sure which AE911truth presentation is meant here. On the thread linked above, I think you may have missed painter's post #2: "This video footage is heavily edited and not trustworthy. Absolutely NOTHING substantial can be drawn from it. ... Not saying it is or isn't, just saying that as evidence of anything this vid is useless. Actually worse than useless because it presents itself as evidence of 'something' when it isn't. Just more sh*t for people to waste time arguing over. pukeface.gif " Also, I added my $0.02 on video "evidence" to that thread.

It can't be smoke from the demolition of the twin towers, because this happened some 9 hours after their collapse, and the smoke cleared pretty quickly after the collapse of the building 7. If it came from the demolition of the twin towers, it certainly wouldn't dissipate after another source of smoke - building 7 - was added.

How do we know this? Have you ever seen a forest or brush fire afterwards? (Or old battlefield video footage or the 1991 Gulf war oil well fire video?) Do you know how small an airborne smoke particle is? I seem to recall there being very little wind on that fateful day. Can you have smoke without fire (or vice-versa)? Can we determine conclusively whether it was "smoke" or pulverized concrete?

It certainly seems rather odd, and I'm not sure who to believe any more. It seems rather impossible for so many cameras and eyewitnesses to be involved in the conspiracy, but the huge volume of material and experts and eyewitnesses claiming otherwise can't be ignored either.

While I'm quite sure who not to believe now, my lingering question is here at post #16:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746305

Since it has still gone unanswered (as of today), I posted it again at post #47 (along with screen captures of the "raging fire and smoke" in NIST's WTC7 video):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10749907

Those are both excellent threads that might clear some things up for you BTW, and it looks from my first thread linked above that the WTC7 fires started BEFORE the WTC1 North collapse... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[Smrekar]

Hi Smrekar,

I'm not sure which AE911truth presentation is meant here. On the thread linked above, I think you may have missed painter's post #2: "This video footage is heavily edited and not trustworthy. Absolutely NOTHING substantial can be drawn from it. ... Not saying it is or isn't, just saying that as evidence of anything this vid is useless. Actually worse than useless because it presents itself as evidence of 'something' when it isn't. Just more sh*t for people to waste time arguing over. pukeface.gif " Also, I added my $0.02 on video "evidence" to that thread.

Sorry - I just used it as an example, and I wasn't even reffering to your original post, but to some of the replies, stating the smoke looked like an extra layer above the video.

How do we know this? Have you ever seen a forest or brush fire afterwards? (Or old battlefield video footage or the 1991 Gulf war oil well fire video?) Do you know how small an airborne smoke particle is? I seem to recall there being very little wind on that fateful day. Can you have smoke without fire (or vice-versa)? Can we determine conclusively whether it was "smoke" or pulverized concrete?

By definition, pulverized concrete particles in air would qualify for smoke. This is, however, immaterial to this debate.
What I'm saying is that there was obviously a large amount of smoke in the air prior to the Building 7 falling, and a lot less shortly afterwards, and I'd like to know if there is a plausible explanation for it (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You can have fire without significant smoke, obviously:
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Gas_stove_blue_flames.jpg)

Smoke without fire is indeed more problematic.

While I'm quite sure who not to believe now, my lingering question is here at post #16:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746305

Since it has still gone unanswered (as of today), I posted it again at post #47 (along with screen captures of the "raging fire and smoke" in WTC7's video):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10749907

Those are both excellent threads that might clear some things up for you BTW, and it looks from my first thread linked above that the WTC7 fires started BEFORE the WTC1 North collapse... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

I won't pretend to know an answer to that, however you do seem knowledgeable on the subject.

[dMz]

Sorry - I just used it as an example, and I wasn't even reffering to your original post, but to some of the replies, stating the smoke looked like an extra layer above the video.

By definition, pulverized concrete particles in air would qualify for smoke. This is, however, immaterial to this debate. ...

Here's an idea- if the smoke was discussed on that thread, add your input regarding that smoke to that thread.

Actually by definition 1.a) below, finely-pulverized concrete is NOT smoke. This is unless you know something about 9/11 that the rest of us don't regarding combustion of concrete. We've even got a thread or two here for that, too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoke

"1 a: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon"

I also find it somewhat interesting that you chose to bring up debate in this forum.

[Smrekar]

Here's an idea- if the smoke was discussed on that thread, add your input regarding that smoke to that thread.

This thread seemed better - it's empty and will remain empty, unless a topic is opened regarding what is posted in the opening post. The topic is relevant to the video posted, and it avoids clutter and confusion elsewhere.
All in all, a much better choice, imho. You can, of course, disagree, if you so choose. But you can't seriously claim opening the question here is inappropriate or anything like that.

Actually by definition 1.a) below, finely-pulverized concrete is NOT smoke. This is unless you know something about 9/11 that the rest of us don't regarding combustion of concrete. We've even got a thread or two here for that, too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoke

"1 a: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon"

From the same source (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoke)
1 b: a suspension of particles in a gas

I think we can agree that finely pulverized concrete floating in the air qualifies for this second definition, right? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I also find it somewhat interesting that you chose to bring up debate in this forum.

Why is that?

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Oct 11 2008, 03:08 PM

[dMz]

This thread seemed better - it's empty and will remain empty, unless a topic is opened regarding what is posted in the opening post. The topic is relevant to the video posted, and it avoids clutter and confusion elsewhere.
All in all, a much better choice, imho. You can, of course, disagree, if you so choose. But you can't seriously claim opening the question here is inappropriate or anything like that.

Nice vague use of pronouns there.

1. Can you please be specific and ask pointed, non-sophist, semi-circular, vague questions?
2. Could you please reference the "it's" and "what" and "The's" in question directly, so that some don't need to play "second ambiguous guess" with you?
3. We have a quote function here- it usually works pretty well. We've got post numbers too, over on the right upper part of each post.

From the same source (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoke)
1 b: a suspension of particles in a gas

I think we can agree that finely pulverized concrete floating in the air qualifies for this second definition, right? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well, now that you regurgitate my sourced link, why YES we can agree. Can you now provide a logical, verifiably-sourced explanation for what force created and suspended those finely-pulverized, non-combusted concrete particles for days on end across Manhattan and NYC proper?

Why is that?

Because the Debate Forum resides over at the link below, where your earlier non-sourced, primarily off-topic exchange now lives. You might want to take a look at the Forum Rules at the top of each page here, in addition to the Debate Forum Rules now.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15180

I have family visiting right now, so I may be away for a while. You might want to take a look at the rules in the Debate Forum before making further posts, too. If you have a problem with my moderator actions, by all means feel free to complain to the Administration of this forum (FYI- they'll likely want specifics and links too). You can email pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org, or else you could search around for conspicuously-labeled "Administrator" post(s) and Personal Message (PM) one of the Administrators directly. I also would prefer if you did a little research reading the hundreds of threads here before posting multiple questions on multiple threads, but to each their own...

I hope you have a nice, anonymous day Smrekar. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

EDIT: I'll do you another favor. Here's a link to the Moderating Team:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....mp;CODE=leaders

[Smrekar]

Nice vague use of pronouns there.

1. Can you please be specific and ask pointed, non-sophist, semi-circular, vague questions?
2. Could you please reference the "it's" and "what" and "The's" in question directly, so that some don't need to play "second ambiguous guess" with you?
3. We have a quote function here- it usually works pretty well. We've got post numbers too, over on the right upper part of each post.

Ok, let's try again.
The video posted in the opening - first - post of this thread shows a number of videos showing heavy smoke coming from WTC building 7. What is the explanation for this smoke?

Well, now that you regurgitate my sourced link, why YES we can agree. Can you now provide a logical, verifiably-sourced explanation for what force created and suspended those finely-pulverized, non-combusted concrete particles for days on end across Manhattan and NYC proper?

No, I can't, and I can't see why is it relevant to my question.

Because the Debate Forum resides over at the link below, where your earlier non-sourced, primarily off-topic exchange now lives. You might want to take a look at the Forum Rules at the top of each page here, in addition to the Debate Forum Rules now.

I didn't (intend to) start a debate or a polemic. I asked a question, seen above in this post, regarding a video, present in the very first post of this thread. I'm quite aware of the forum rules, thank you very much.

[hadmatter]

Ok, let's try again.
The video posted in the opening - first - post of this thread shows a number of videos showing heavy smoke coming from WTC building 7. What is the explanation for this smoke?

Well, pardon my meddling, but here's a thought .... lee eddy (and no, Im not talking about the actress). I'm thinking more along the lines of fluid dynamics. Here's a brief description from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_(fluid_dynamics)

"Eddy (fluid dynamics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fluid dynamics, an eddy is the swirling of a fluid and the reverse current created when the fluid flows past an obstacle. The moving fluid creates a space devoid of downstream-flowing fluid on the downstream side of the object. Fluid behind the obstacle flows into the void creating a swirl of fluid on each edge of the obstacle, followed by a short reverse flow of fluid behind the obstacle flowing upstream, toward the back of the obstacle. This phenomenon is most visible behind large emergent rocks in swift-flowing rivers."

As evidenced by the direction of the smoke pouring out of the two towers, on the morning of September 11, 2001 the breeze in NYC was coming out of the north more or less. The billowing smoke at WTC7 in all the pictures and videos is on the south, or lee side of the building. WTC7 was the obstacle in the "river" that caused the air to flow around it like water in a swift current.

The thick smoke in all the pictures looks like it's trapped up against the south wall of the building by the wind swirling around the edges and reversing direction into the void behind the building. How else can you explain how the smoke comes up to the edge of the SW corner in the pictures and stops rather than billow out into the adjacent street. It's behaving just as predicted in the wiki description above.

As for the source of the smoke, much of it is very likey come from both WTC 5 & 6, which were accross the street from WTC7 and both heavily damaged and engaged in significant fires. Here's an article with some good photos I ripped off a "Wingmaster05" post over in the WTC 3,4,5 & 6 section:

http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm

As also observed in the video, there was a point when the smoke cleared to reveal the damaged south side of WTC7. Besides the strange dark gash, what's also evident is a lack of any raging fires, or even blackened walls where large fires might have been burning earlier (as on the west side of the building). I suspect the reason for the temporary clearing was that the wind died down for a bit and the trapped smoke drifted away.

Now, do I know for a fact this what we're looking at? Well, no. But it makes a lot more sense to me than the duh-bunker stories I've read about the building being engulfed in raging fires which, other than the smoke, no one happened to catch a picture of the entire day.

My 2 cents.

Damn, two posts in one day. Another beer and who knows how far I'll go.

[dMz]

Since Smrekar appears to primarily be after sophist, semantical, argumentative minutiae and "JAQ'ing off" rather than asking sincere, legitimate questions, this thread was split from:

Wtc 7 Collapse Compilation Video
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6086

[painter]

What is the explanation for this smoke?

hadmatter has it. I've referred to this phenomena as a "wind shadow" or "blow back" but "lee eddy" is more accurate.

The smoke seen rising along side 7 isn't coming from the building -- that is a false assumption and presentment often made by so-called 'debunkers'. The smoke is coming from the ground zero debris pile. The pile continued to smoke and smolder for days if not weeks after 9/11. There is a draft current due to the air flow around 7 that is cycling some of the smoke up along side it like a chimney. Anyone who has ever tried to build a camp fire in front of a high wind break should be familiar with this phenomena.

[Smrekar]

hadmatter has it. I've referred to this phenomena as a "wind shadow" or "blow back" but "lee eddy" is more accurate.

The smoke seen rising along side 7 isn't coming from the building -- that is a false assumption and presentment often made by so-called 'debunkers'. The smoke is coming from the ground zero debris pile. The pile continued to smoke and smolder for days if not weeks after 9/11. There is a draft current due to the air flow around 7 that is cycling some of the smoke up along side it like a chimney. Anyone who has ever tried to build a camp fire in front of a high wind break should be familiar with this phenomena.

Hmm. Can you source this?
I'd wait for dMole to ask the same, but I won't hold my breath.

Thanks in advance (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[painter]

Hmm. Can you source this?
I'd wait for dMole to ask the same, but I won't hold my breath.

Thanks in advance (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007...07building7.htm

[dMz]

I didn't (intend to) start a debate or a polemic. I asked a question, seen above in this post, regarding a video, present in the very first post of this thread. I'm quite aware of the forum rules, thank you very much.

Quoting the above for posterity and for everyone's edification. Plus, it's too rich.

[Smrekar]

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007...07building7.htm

Cool, thanks (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Images don't load for me - it's probably this laptop I'm using right now, my main comp. is down at the moment - but I'll check them at a later date (hopefuly by tommorow).
Is there any firefighter that can attest to raging infernos in 5 and 6? It would help a lot (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Smrekar]

So no one noticed that I conspicuously did not say how the explosives got in the Pentagon above? The "renovation" would allow considerable building access here. I think we should look a little closer at the pre-collapse hole(s) in the Pentagon though, and I remember multiple reports of explosions early on at the Pentagon. Those could be accurate reports, before the "damage control" propaganda machine was thrown in gear.

I'm sorry, but I will have to ask you a very painful question: if the explosives were on the inside of the Pentagon, wouldn't that throw pieces of masonry from the outer wall on the lawn and beyond?

Sorry, this isn't a question. It's a statement of fact. If the hole were caused by an explosion inside Pentagon, there would be many pieces of masonry, large and small, thrown outwards, and you'd probably see causalities from flying pieces of masonry and concrete, not to mention the damage to the highway, cars, etc.

If the hole was caused by an explosion, the explosive had to be positioned on the outside of the external wall. No way around it that I can see ... can you?

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Apr 13 2009, 10:54 AM

[rob balsamo]

Seems someone never heard of the existence of directional explosives.... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)


however....

"People who were close by, were blown off their feet and some even went flying. Small pieces of airplane, concrete, and other rubble was blown out of the building and landed up to hundreds of yards away.... Several pieces landed on the Pentagon's northern parking lot... "- Charles H. Krohn; Ret. Lt. Col. Tom McClain

(bold above mine)

"... Another big piece supposedly landed on a nearby road... " - Tony Terronez


Try not to troll so much this time around Smrekar...

[Smrekar]

Seems someone never heard of the existence of directional explosives.... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)


however....

"People who were close by, were blown off their feet and some even went flying. Small pieces of airplane, concrete, and other rubble was blown out of the building and landed up to hundreds of yards away.... Several pieces landed on the Pentagon's northern parking lot... "- Charles H. Krohn; Ret. Lt. Col. Tom McClain

(bold above mine)

"... Another big piece supposedly landed on a nearby road... " - Tony Terronez

To reiterate, if there was a bomb inside the Pentagon, which caused the hole and other observed damage, the lawn and the highway would be covered by debris from the Pentagon walls. Some small pieces doesn't nearly cut it, as the bomb would have to throw the entire section (however big it was) outside.

I can't really fathom a way to address this with 'directional explosives'. Can you explain how do you think that would avoid the debris? If you think it's so obvious that you only need to speak the words and call me a troll for not knowing it you really shouldn't have a problem in explaining it in a few sentences. If know a way to avoid it, tell it here and now, or tell me where it was previously explained.

By the way, I do know how these 'directional explosives' work, probably much better than you, so there is no need to lecture me on the mechanics of the device. Explain me how the described effects would be avoided, yet the hole would still be there.

Try not to troll so much this time around Smrekar...

Who's trolling?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Daryl Donley reported:

"Also you can see in the road, possibly, all the, umm, debris from the Pentagon—there’s lots of cement chunks in the road."

Even Lloyde says "rocks and stuff" were blown out all the way to the highway.

There's no question that there is plenty of evidence of building debris being blown outwards.

This quote from firefighter Alan Wallace who was at the heliport is rather telling:

"I proceeded to go around the back of the fire truck and into this area that had a door there just to the south of where the fire truck was parked. I have never seen these doors open.

But I think what had happened -- they were huge, big, wooden doors and they're all around the building. These doors did not have any handles on them as I recall on the outside. And there was like a set of steps, maybe two or three steps high that went up to this area though that went right up to the doors. These doors were completely gone. They were probably blown out of the building.

source

Just look at the damage and you will see.

The columns where the right engine would have entered are blown up and out!
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/upandout.jpg)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I can't really fathom a way to address this with 'directional explosives'. Can you explain how do you think that would avoid the debris? If you think it's so obvious that you only need to speak the words and call me a troll for not knowing it you really shouldn't have a problem in explaining it in a few sentences. If know a way to avoid it, tell it here and now, or tell me where it was previously explained.

You are not a credentialed explosives expert and even if you were you would not have all the inside knowledge of the exact combination of shaped-charges, incendiaries, or directional explosives or WHATEVER exact combination of weaponry was used.

Nor can you know how it was implemented or be in a position to question or have knowledge of the ultimate access, control, and resources that the suspect in question had at their fingertips.

Furthermore, as already demonstrated, there is plenty of evidence that substantial building debris WAS blown out.

Oh and....don't forget.....the plane was on the north side and did not hit.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Apr 13 2009, 01:01 PM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I'm sorry, but I will have to ask you a very painful question: if the explosives were on the inside of the Pentagon, wouldn't that throw pieces of masonry from the outer wall on the lawn and beyond?

After Rob provided examples "pieces of masonry from the outer wall on the lawn and beyond" , goal posts moved:

To reiterate, if there was a bomb inside the Pentagon, which caused the hole and other observed damage, the lawn and the highway would be covered by debris from the Pentagon walls. Some small pieces doesn't nearly cut it, as the bomb would have to throw the entire section (however big it was) outside.

(IMG:http://www.prosnapper.com/catalog/images/posts_portablegoal2.jpg)

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Apr 13 2009, 01:41 PM