Have you seen these photos of building 7? I hadn't until this morning.

[QuettaKid]

I found them here....

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2248335

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. The smoke is probably coming from WTC 5 & 6

which were in front of WTC7 and were actually on fire.

I see no flames or raging fire coming out of the south side of WTC 7, just lot's of smoke.

It would be interesting to know what time of day these photos were taken? You can see they are running water on WTC6 and that WTC6 is already mostly burnt out.

Why would they run water on WTC6 but not WTC7 which they decided to abandon at about 2:30 PM when someone decided that the building might collape, yet they fight a fire in WTC6 and don't seemed too concerned about a collapse there?

[Jazz2006]

2. Oh, come on.

If the smoke was coming from WTC5 and WTC6, do you really think it would align so perfectly with the edge of WTC7 from bottom to top? I don't doubt that smoke from 5 & 6 could have contributed to the smoke shown in the various photographs but to suggest that it was all from 5 & 6 stretches credulity beyond recognition.

Perhaps you missed my posts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=107760&mesg_id=109986

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=107760&mesg_id=109987

in response to that same assertion you made in another thread?

Edit to fix links.

[greyl]

4. That's quite a stretch, DYEW.

Can you explain how the smoke in the photos only appears to be coming from WTC7, but in reality isn't?
I'm familiar with how turbulence at the "rear" of an object can seem to gather exhaust or smoke, but these photos don't depict that effect.

Maybe the photos are fake.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Depends of which way the wind was blowing

But when thick smoke hits a wall, ie WTC7 then it has no place else to go except up and around the wall.

Why the thick smoke is so defined along the edge of the building defends on what time the picture was taken. Was it the beginning of the event, the middle, the end? Did the smoke continue to rise and spread or did it just continue to go straight up? You would need a video or sequence of stills to really evaluate what was causing the effects we are seeing.

However, despite all of this thick smoke, there is no evidence of the flames causing them. Plus, we know that WTC 5 & 6 are on fire and generating smoke, where do you think the smoke was going from those fires?

[greyl]

6. The wind direction is quite clear, isn't it?

Why the thick smoke is so defined along the edge of the building defends on what time the picture was taken.

Not really, the definition of the edge is because of the source of smoke and the direction of the breeze.

However, despite all of this thick smoke, there is no evidence of the flames causing them.

What, other than combustion, causes this evidence of smoke? Pre-placed shape charges in tandem with supernanoaluminumthermate?

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Have you ever been in downtown NYC?

The wind direction is not always clear. Yes the wind in the front open area appears to be going east. However, the wind interacts with the building and whips around them and the air currents, even under normal circumstances are nothing like being out in an open area with no obstructions. Besides the wall of the North Tower is obstructing the view behind it and whatever is generating the smoke. If the north side of WTC 5 and/or WTC 6 were burning it would make sense for the smoke to end up running up the wall of WTC 7.

Second, since this is a 'newly' discovered image, it is hard to tell how much it may have been manipulated. Whoever it belongs to has put watermarks all over it and that is distorting some of the smoke. Makes you wonder what other 'clean-up' may have been done?

[greyl]

19. Yes, twice. My experience with fire, smoke, and aerodynamics

is much more extensive and relevant than how much time I've spent in NYC.

These photos help show how reasonable it is to conclude that WTC7 was significantly damaged and burning, but even if you discount these photos, there are others that lead to the same conclusion i.e the statement "WTC7 wasn't damaged enough to collapse and Silverstein had it rigged" is bullshit.

If you want to take the position that we can't tell a fake photo from a real one, that's a different argument altogether. I'd only ask that you apply the same skepticism to the photographic evidence provided by the CT side.

Are you saying these photos are manipulated to give the impression that WTC7 was severely damaged and burning?
Yes, or No?



If "Yes", then your original argument that the photos don't show severe damage and burning must be withdrawn.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. I didn't know you had x-ray eyes

The smoke is covering up the facade, so I can't see if it is damaged or not.

Is WTC7 burning? Parts of it were but there is no evidence of flames coming out of the part of the building that is visible in this photo. The fire could be from across the street or something on the ground that's burning or WTC7 or even all three.

[BootinUp]

24. If you look at this avi clip

You can see flames and smoke clearly coming from this same side of the building.

clip of the WTC 7 burning, less than 1 MB. You need Xvid codec.

http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

[Carefulplease]

33. Here is yet another video...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Smoke is seen pouring from the windows of WTC7. There are interruptions in the smoke flow below some levels so it does not come from another building lower down and further south -- it originates from the facade of WTC7 and pours away from it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Most of the smoke

is come from near the ground and it is not possible to tell what is burning that is generating the flames.

From what I can see, it looks like there are at least three different sources for the smoke in this video. Two of them are from sites in front of and to the east of WTC7. Some is coming from WTC 7 too, but not all of it. Smoke is running up the side of WTC7 but that doesn't mean it is coming out of WTC7. The same effect happened with the Towers. The smoke from the impact zone ran up the sides of the building making it seem like most of the floors were on fire, when it was mostly just the floors in the impact zone that were actually burning.

[BootinUp]

39. Did you check out the one I posted

Above at post 24?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109989&mesg_id=110027

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Yes

Two of the sources of smoke in that video are from the ground south of WTC 7 and one is to the SE of WTC 7 but it is clear that those two sources are from a point in front of and east of the building.

Some of the smoke is coming from WTC7 but most likely a fair bit of is coming from this fire on the east side of the building, not the south side.

[greyl]

25. "no evidence of flames"

do you understand how smoke is created?

The smoke is covering up the facade, so I can't see if it is damaged or not.

Uhh, 'the smoke is covering up the flames, so I can't imagine what's causing the smoke'

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Instead of assuming what my positions are

maybe you could just ask? I have posted enough around here that you don't have to make assumptions and I give you permission to use direct quotes. Please don't make up opinions and the attribute them to me, for example "Silverstein had it rigged", which I have never claimed but your post 'implies' that I have.

In answer to the questions that you did ask.

1. We can't tell a fake photo from a real one?

One of the reasons why I'm on the computer so much is that a fair bit of my regular job is spent working in Photoshop. I work in the graphic arts and that requires manipulating images. Most of the images of 9-11 that are available on the Internet are raw images taken the day of the event. Most of them were published soon after the event. Many of these raw images were done by professional photographers. There were a handful of photographers that instead of running away, ran into the disaster area to document the event. In addition, NYC has a special camera team that goes to disasters. These images are the most reliable. Images that suddenly pop up 5 years later, with three different color balances out of three pictures and watermarks embedded set off at least a few red flags.

2. Are you saying these photos are manipulated to give the impression that WTC7 was severely damaged and burning?
Yes, or No?

No. I said the thick smoke obscures the damage, so since no one, not even NIST can find a picture of the damage, we can only assume that there was damage, which I have no problem with. I just don't believe that even with severe damage to one side of a 47 story tall steel building would have been enough to cause the total failure of the building even if the fires were raging, which there is no visual evidence that they were.

[greyl]

3. Those, plus more, are from 911myths.com.

www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

(Which happens to be an authentic "independent investigation, skepticism, and critical thinking" website.)

[planeman]

7. Yes 911myths.com is an excellent site that destroys the CT's.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

37. not really; it just creates more CTs

[wildbilln864]

32. greyl said

...
(Which happens to be an authentic "independent investigation, skepticism, and critical thinking" website.)

I was just wondering how you know? How do you know that website is independant?
How did you determine it has no agenda to aid the coverup?
I don't know either way. I'm just curious to why others give it so much credit.
It's sometimes hard to distinguish between really independant, unbiased groups.
Thanks greyl and any others who respond!

[BootinUp]

36. ...a fair question

The only good answer is you have to judge that for yourself. I could tell you that they do a good job of laying out the arguments both ways and cite the sources and don't take hardline positions if the evidence is inconclusive. But you would still have to check that anyways. He's in England but I don't know much else about him.

I haven't seen the site discredited in any meaningful way to this point.

Its not really a site to use for first hand information since they are not like a reputable news organization. But they have sources linked there for you to verify.

[greyl]

41. How about cooperatively independent, then?

At least one DU thread has been referenced by 911myths as a source for new footage.

[jschurchin]

8. Stevie Wonder could tell.........

something doesn't seem right with those photograph's. The smoke is coming in a straight line up the corner of the building.

[greyl]

9. What force would cause the smoke to go against the wind,

to the left, and turn a 90% angle around the building?
The Schwartz?

[jschurchin]

11. Take another look............

at the picture. It appears the wind is blowing the smoke from inside the building out. As if there are fans inside the building forcing the smoke out.

Perhaps you are related to Stevie Wonder.

Edited for spelling.

[greyl]

22. I'd expect some airflow to come through all those broken windows,

what with all the heat inside of WTC7 provided by the office fires and burning diesel fuel.

Perhaps you are related to Stevie Wonder.

Blindness isn't hereditary, nor was Stevie born blind.

[BootinUp]

10. I guess you discounted

that it is pouring out of the building.

[jschurchin]

12. Ok Stevie.

[BootinUp]

13. I'm not the one trying to explain away

a huge dark plume of smoke that is either attached to a 47 ? story building with photographic fakery or is just pouring out of the building becuase it is a raging inferno as eyewitnesses described that day.

[jschurchin]

15. Hey Jim, I do not........

try to explain it. It just is one of the oddest pictures from that day I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of them. Now as far as a RAGING inferno goes, please link to your witnesses list. Uncontrolled pockets of fire, yes. Raging inferno..............uh, don't think so.
Link Please.

[BootinUp]

18. It started small and got big:

It started small and got big:

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[jschurchin]

26. One person does not..........

equal eyewitnesses(your word not mine).

[greyl]

27. The post you replied to included 2 links.

I'm pretty sure they were provided for you to check out before replying.
If you had checked them out, your reply probably wouldn't have erroneously centered on "one person".

[jschurchin]

29. Oh boy almost a bunch

Keep trying you can get it to three I bet.

Come on don't give up yet. Maybe even four. Come on you can do it!!!!!!!!

[greyl]

31. Your reply is thoroughly insignificant.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shitty&r=f

[BootinUp]

28. true enough.

As a further effort to show you evidence on the fire and smoke you may wish to watch the small video in another post on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109989&mesg_id=110027

[jschurchin]

30. Naw Jim, Not today.

Maybe tommorow, then again I'm probably busy. Send it back to me next week sometime, I might have time to watch it then.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. WTC 7 was a big building

and WTC 5 & 6 had big fires. The smoke from those fires had no where else to go but up once it WTC7 directly across the street.

The smoke is still billowing after WTC7 fell.



http://www.mensh.com/wtc.html

[HamdenRice]

16. Follow the smoke to the bottom of the picture

Sorry if you think that this photo "proves" larger fires in WTC 7. It just doesn't. That smoke is definitely not from WTC 7. When I first looked at it, my immediate reaction was that the scale between the smoke (especially the billows) and the building was just somehow "wrong." In other words, the smoke is much closer than the building. It appears to be more in the foreground.

And here is the "smoking gun." Follow the smoke to the bottom of the picture. Notice how the same smoke column partly obscures the other destroyed structures. That means the bottom of the smoke column is in front of those buildings. To be coming out of WTC7 the smoke column would be behind those buildings.

In other words the smoke is much closer than WTC 7 and is coming from some source other than WTC7.

Also this picture is inconsistent with all the other photographic and eyewitness testimony. There are many pictures of the fires in WTC 7 and many eyewitnesses who confirm that it was a fairly contained fire.

I don't think this is a photoshop job. It's just one of those random things -- the photographer's perspective lined up two different phenomena and made them appear linked.

[greyl]

21. No.

the smoke is much closer than the building. It appears to be more in the foreground.

Other than the smoke coming around from the left side of the building, all of the smoke is in the foreground relative to WTC7. After seeing a clear pattern of wind direction, why would you expect something different?


Notice how the same smoke column partly obscures the other destroyed structures. That means the bottom of the smoke column is in front of those buildings. To be coming out of WTC7 the smoke column would be behind those buildings.

No. There is more than one source of smoke shown in the photo. It's no mystery that several different sources of smoke in near proximity will eventually convene to follow the overall airflow. There is no way to explain that smoke from the foreground went back to cover WTC7 only to follow the main airflow to the right again.

It's just one of those random things

You mean like a severely damaged and burning building eventually collapsing under its own weight?

[Carefulplease]

34. See videoclips linked at messages #24 and #33

There is no gap between the smoke and WTC7. The smoke poors directly out from the facade.

[jschurchin]

17. A google search on fark turns up this

Fark.com Interesting, bizarre and amusing news stories, along with regular photo manipulation contests

Uh, yeah. Well that doesn't mean they may be retouched.

[greyl]

20. Check the source of the pictures.

It ain't fark.

[rman]

42. except that the photos don't originate from fark,

and aren't posted on fark, what's posted on fark is a link to prisonplanet.

Besides, any photo can be manipulated including those from the govt and the MSM.
It's not like not having a photo manipulation contest is assurance that no manipulation took place.

And other photos of WTC7 show the same fires:

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. Here's a pic that shows the source of much of the smoke

Most of it is coming from the remains of WTC1, WTC 6 and from other smoldering objects on the ground. Also there were numerous vehicles on Vesey Street and in other places that were burning and generating smoke.

Still no evidence of flames and/or fire coming out of the south side of WTC7

[greyl]

44. Only if "much" equals "some".

I think of all the pics in this thread, yours shows the least amount of WTC 7. However, even though 7 is mostly blocked in your pic, smoke is still seen coming out of the upper floors.

[petgoat]

45. "coming out of the upper floors. "

I don't see how you can say that. There are no visible flames.

The wind coming from the NW swept the west side of WTC7 clean and
created a vacuum on the south side of WTC7. The blanket of smoke
we see on the s side of WTC7 could be coming from WTC7 or it could
be smoke sucked up from WTC6.

[greyl]

47. The photos and video that contradict your theory are called fake,

the ones used to support your theory are misinterpreted, the eyewitness accounts are ignored or called fake.
Whatever.

[petgoat]

49. In post 44 you state emphatically that smoke is seen coming out

of upper WTC7 floors.

When your basis for this is questioned, you make vague and generalized
remarks about CD theories, and conclude "whatever."

[greyl]

51. What's your reply to post 48? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. Man o' Man DYEW

Give those arms a rest, cuz that is some SERIOUS reaching. Like this thread has AWARD WINNING reaching goin' on.

Its verging on sad and desperate, and is very unbecoming.

**sorry forgot the E for "Ever"

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. I suppose that's why the smoke kept billowing

even after WTC7 collapsed.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. The fires continued in rubble of WTC 1 & 2

after the collapse. Did they not?

[greyl]

48. From posts 24 & 33

http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi
http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Obvious documentary evidence of severe damage and heavy smoke pouring from damn near the entire height of WTC 7.