Explosives and Demolition Industry Explains CD Theory

Yes, I would like you to explain how my pic is wrong. Why don't you adjust the arrows and show us.


That is the south side of the building. My arrows aren't perfect but the give a good indication. Please feel free to change it, it still will show how ridiculous your "smoke was from 5 and 6" argument is.

Ok, then, since you apparently don't understand why your image is wildly inaccurate.

This is your image:



This is an aerial of ground zero:




For one, your picture shows both buildings to one side of WTC7, when they were obviously behind it on both sides. (WTC5 especially was mostly on THE COMPLETE OTHER SIDE of WTC7, low to its back.)


For two, WTC7 was 47 stories tall, while WTC5 and 6 were much shorter and nearer WTC7's base, not floating in the air halfway up WTC7.


For three, your arrows are 2D, as is the 2D "plane" the photograph can be seen to occupy, while the surroundings were 3D. Since the photograph you used was at an angle to WTC7, and the arrows can be seen as extensions of the 2D "plane", you're actually pointing vaguely towards the American Express Building, but this isn't as important as one can still get an idea of the general area you're trying to point to.


Mainly, the buildings were low to the back of WTC7, on both sides, and not both to one side, and halfway up to WTC7.

And WTC5 was absolutely nowhere near where your arrow for it is pointing.

Actually, on another look, you've apparently put WTC6 on the wrong side of WTC5, too. Maybe I should just stop looking at your image and let you address all of the problems I've noticed so far before going on.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by bsbray11]

The arrow there shows where you are pointing. WTC5 and 6 are surrounded by a box, and WTC7 is too, just so you know where those are.

If I could demonstrate elevation in the above image, I would also show how you're pointing halfway off of WTC7 and not at any buildings near its base.

And -- also notice where 5 and 6 are in relation to each other. WTC5 would not be farther over than WTC6, as also suggested in your image.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by bsbray11]

hey bsbray and leftbehind

www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

if you go there you will see a video under 9/11 deniers speak. regardless of the topic there is good video of wtc 7 from directly next to it. if you let the video load all the way, slide or search to about the THIRTY THREE minute mark. you will see alex jones discussing silverstein and it will cut to wtc 7 video. i hope it can provide something
i cant remember seeing it before

i feel that if we used video instead of stills it would be more useful to the discussion

good luck

[edit on 12-8-2006 by blatantblue]

well, more like the EXACT 33 minute mark, sorry

Duhh,

Very informative paper and thank you for sharing it with us.

Originally posted by blatantblue


i feel that if we used video instead of stills it would be more useful to the discussion

You have got to be kidding.

I have posted the video of that still three or four times already in this thread. I guess no one clicks on links in this forum.

Here is the video where I got the still.

www.youtube.com...

The second half of that video clearly shows smoke pouring out of most of the south side of WTC 7.

Bsbray, no matter how you spin it, there is no way that smoke is coming from 5 or 6 and then appearing as if it was coming out of multiple floors of 7, as is clearly shown in the video posted above yet again.

And no I don't see it, as your pic shows, both buildings are in the general area of those arrows.

The smoke is coming out of the south side of the building, the side facing where 1 and 2 once stood. Across the street were 5 and 6 as your pics show us.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

quote: Originally posted by blatantblue


i feel that if we used video instead of stills it would be more useful to the discussion



You have got to be kidding.

I have posted the video of that still three or four times already in this thread. I guess no one clicks on links in this forum.

Here is the video where I got the still.

www.youtube.com...

The second half of that video clearly shows smoke pouring out of most of the south side of WTC 7. "






did you watch the part of the video i posted? i know you have very nice videos posted and youre proud of them but they are on an awkward angle. the one i suggest has video from RIGHT NEXT to the side of wtc 7. its clearer and more straightforward


but hey if you dont want different vids to help bolster your case thats ok

heres a still from the video im talking about. i have no idea how to do image tags
and i dont have any photobuckets or anything so i put it on my myspace. hope it works if not iull finish it later after work

viewmorepics.myspace.com...


as you can see (hopefully) it is at a better angle than the other video you posted leftbehind, i hope you watch it


[edit on 12-8-2006 by blatantblue]

[edit on 12-8-2006 by blatantblue]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray, no matter how you spin it, there is no way that smoke is coming from 5 or 6 and then appearing as if it was coming out of multiple floors of 7, as is clearly shown in the video posted above yet again.

Once again, I'm not saying there was NO smoke coming from 7. Only that that mass of smoke hovering around it was NOT from 7.

A crapload of smoke in the region, and no photos of any major fire in WTC7, does NOT mean that there was still massive fires in WTC7. It just means you're seeing smoke from other buildings. Your view, that a lot of smoke that *must* all be from WTC7, and yet not a single photo of major fire in the same building, can't be done justice without getting me a warn.

And no I don't see it, as your pic shows, both buildings are in the general area of those arrows.

Jesus, no they are not. I'm not even going to respond to this anymore. Anyone with even half of a brain can look at the aerial image I just posted above and see how wrong your image is.

I'm going to summarize all the problems with your image below and leave it at that. You can argue with it. Spare me your inability to concede being wrong.

That's great Bsbray,

But it still doesn't prove that the smoke is coming from anywhere other than a smoky gaping hole in WTC 7, as the video and numerous eyewitnesses prove.


I'll admit that to some perspectives you can certainly take my poorly mspainted arrows and then say that they are not pointing at the buildings.

How about you admit that the smoke is coming from 7 and not magically floating north across the street and then floating up the side of 7 and then heading south again.



[edit on 12-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 12-8-2006 by LeftBehind]

The Smoke is pouring out of WTC 7! REPEAT the SMOKE is pouring out of WTC 7!
But, ofcourse someone here knows better than all the eye wit's ! LOL!
Just like arguing to death this Paper of EXPERTS!
Fascinating!

Duhh I don't think your posted paper is bad at all and yes they are experts in demolation. The problem comes when they become experts in areas they are not expert in as well. WTC 7 was burning with black smoke from the diesel tanks burning in the building. Yes it burns very hot at about 850 degrees not doubt and the wtc 7 took a heck of a hit in the towers fall. IF silverstein had not been caught on tape telling people to pull the bldging I think alot of people would have accepted the outcome. But you also have Marvin Bush handling overall security in the WTC area and thats another bug to look at itself. I think you present good questions and you defend then good, we are also in this book because answers are not clear to us and as everyone knows ten witnesses can have ten different versions of a event. I think planes hit the towers but what brought then down is a whole different
agenda.

I agree with you Monde, but I think there is a hint of skeptiscm when watching World Trade Center 7 fall, it didn't look like a progressive collapse but more a simultaneous support destroy collapse, and the rate it fell was astounding.

For those who have not been familiar with it, Welcomeinpeace has covered this numerous times, as have others on the issues.

F silverstein had not been caught on tape telling people to pull the bldging I think alot of people would have accepted the outcome.

Why didn't anyone notice the demo crews attaching the cables and using the heavy equipment needed to pull it during 9/11?

You did read the pdf, didn't you?

[edit on 13-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
But it still doesn't prove that the smoke is coming from anywhere other than a smoky gaping hole in WTC 7, as the video and numerous eyewitnesses prove.

where??? what gaping hole? where is this hugemongous hole that you ppl keep saying is there? why are there are no photos of this magical invisible crayter? the bilding burned for 7 hours or more and nobody took a happy snap of the gaping hole in the front of the bilding? arer you kidding?!
and where are the fires? in your video i can see a little baby flicker of fire at the top in a window. why is there no fire can be seen ANYWHERE on the building? smoldering smoke drifting out don't mean jack! smoke doesn't destroy steel bildings! do you guys know what 'inferno' means?

no inferno!! no gaping hole! but freefall collapse! 2+2 DOES equal five and i've had it with these mutha****** snakes on this mutha****** plane!!

Originally posted by Momento
why are there are no photos of this magical invisible crayter? the bilding burned for 7 hours or more and nobody took a happy snap of the gaping hole in the front of the bilding?

Uh, dude, the two buildings had just collapsed, the firemen on the scene had just watched 343 of their brothers die.

They were keeping EVERYONE away from the area. They were trying to find survivors and locate their dead.

Do you honestly think that they would let some peckerhead walk up and start taking pictures?

www.debunking911.com...

There's your hole.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Momento
why are there are no photos of this magical invisible crayter? the bilding burned for 7 hours or more and nobody took a happy snap of the gaping hole in the front of the bilding?

Uh, dude, the two buildings had just collapsed, the firemen on the scene had just watched 343 of their brothers die.

They were keeping EVERYONE away from the area. They were trying to find survivors and locate their dead.

Do you honestly think that they would let some peckerhead walk up and start taking pictures?

i don't think they would bother to stop people trying to help, or taking pictures from far away. there IS 7 hrs of eyewitness footage of the smoke cloud out there, though, with rick siegel.
people always take pictures of spectacular things like that.

it's 'okay' to do, howard. are you suggesting that we, ie. all of us, should not be allowed to take pictures if someone(s) dies in the vicinity?

since i'm edited out a redundant, 'is', ....

that smoke sure is white.
diesel burns dark grey.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by billybob]

i don't think they would bother to stop people trying to help, or taking pictures from far away. there IS 7 hrs of eyewitness footage of the smoke cloud is out there, though, with rick siegel.

See my post above yours, there is at least 1 picture.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'll admit that to some perspectives you can certainly take my poorly mspainted arrows and then say that they are not pointing at the buildings.

They aren't. There's no logical way your arrows could possibly be taken as accurately pointing to either WTC5 or WTC6.

How about you admit that the smoke is coming from 7 and not magically floating north across the street and then floating up the side of 7 and then heading south again.

Oh yeah, dude, it would take MAGIC for the massive amount of smoke coming out of WTC5 to cross the freaking street and rise up behind WTC7.

Tell me, LeftBehind, where do you think all of this smoke went, if not up and around WTC7?



Where did it go, if not up the back side of WTC7?



HMMMMMMMMMM.

That's a real thinker right there.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by bsbray11]