Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ World Trade 3, 4, 5 and 6 _ Smoke Is Coming From What Building?

Posted by: Wingmaster05 Mar 23 2007, 12:56 PM

I haven't had time to investigate these photo's yet, but prisonplanet is suggesting that most of the billows of smoke purported to be coming from WTC 7 are coming from 5 and 6. I think i have my buildings confused because what they were saying when i first read this didnt make sense in collaboration with the pictures.

I'm going to class, check it out for yourself.

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

This seemed to be the biggest case for fire causing collapse, did it not?

Posted by: painter Mar 23 2007, 03:58 PM

This has always been my impression -- the smoke isn't coming out of 7 but rising up along side it from the other, closer buildings due to draft currents. However, 'convincing' anyone who doesn't want to be convinced of that would be useless. Fence sitters should be able to figure it out for themselves if they look closely enough. In any case, even if the smoke WAS coming from 7, so what?! Smoke is an indication of low-temperature fire; not the kind of white-hot blue flame that would be necessary for catastrophic structural failure.

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 23 2007, 10:18 PM

When I initially started studying WTC 7, my impression of the photos was that they were taken from angles which would take advantage of the smoke from other buildings, particularly WTC 6. To some extent, I've revised that opinion now that I've seen videos such as the one which Steve Spak used to have up on youtube. There is probably some smoke mixture involved, but smoke can be seen coming out of WTC 7. What emerged as more interesting was that buildings and angles seem to have been used to obscure the lower south face of WTC 7, which seems to have been smoke free for extensive periods on 9/11. Of course, that's where most of the damage which was supposedly responsible for the collapse is claimed to have been... Anyway, my current thinking is that there was fairly substantial smoke coming out of the upper floors of WTC 7. Like Painter said, it doesn't really make a difference, though, in terms of what actually caused the collapse. The pics which prison planet is using are nothing new and they've confined themselves to a single photographer with a bad angle (for the smoke pics). So, I don't think their argument has much weight.

Posted by: hardloperhans Mar 31 2007, 03:56 PM

Thanks for that interesting webpage Wingmaster.
Amazing to see that the heavily damaged building 5 and 6 remained standing and that the light damage to WTC7 (and of course the fires) caused a complete collapse.

Posted by: biggahthebettah Jun 3 2007, 11:16 PM

Interesting photos! These are the first ones I've ever seen which show that WTC7 had setbacks. I never noticed those before. What's so interesting to me is that the damage wasn't sustained by the setbacks but by the outer walls themselves. I'm no architect, but what I do know about physics suggests to me that these setbacks mean that the lower, outer sections of the building took the brunt of the damage, and that the main "setback" part of the building, would not have collapsed. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but if you drew a line from the inner, or setback, part of the building, top to bottom, there has to by design be columns going from top to bottom.
the lower, outer walls would have their own corner or outer columns. If this part of the building collapsed, the rest of the building should still have its own load bearing columns which would hold it up.

Anyone here get my drift? If not, maybe I can try explaining again. This is really quite an interesting cache of photos! Thanks for finding them.

Posted by: painter Jun 4 2007, 02:30 AM

QUOTE (biggahthebettah @ Jun 3 2007, 07:16 PM)
Interesting photos! These are the first ones I've ever seen which show that WTC7 had setbacks. I never noticed those before. What's so interesting to me is that the damage wasn't sustained by the setbacks but by the outer walls themselves. I'm no architect, but what I do know about physics suggests to me that these setbacks mean that the lower, outer sections of the building took the brunt of the damage, and that the main "setback" part of the building, would not have collapsed. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but if you drew a line from the inner, or setback, part of the building, top to bottom, there has to by design be columns going from top to bottom.
the lower, outer walls would have their own corner or outer columns. If this part of the building collapsed, the rest of the building should still have its own load bearing columns which would hold it up.

Anyone here get my drift? If not, maybe I can try explaining again. This is really quite an interesting cache of photos! Thanks for finding them.

perhaps I'm not understanding what you are saying but I don't see any 'stepbacks' in 7. Are you sure you're looking at the correct building?

This is 7:






Posted by: waterdancer Jun 5 2007, 12:14 PM

The top two floors inside the corner columns on the south side are set back from the rest of the south face- I think that's what is being referred to...

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)