FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

Please explain these two photos. And do not say that EVERY FLOOR

OF BOTH BUILDINGS WAS ON FIRE, but only on one side.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks an awful lot. The Judy Wood site had a bunch of "after" photos that were interesting. I tracked this one to the Magnum site. Apparently, it was taken by a photographer named Steve McCurry. This is a new name to us hence the lead is a fruitful on. Many thanks, again.

Hi Dave Greer,

This is a new photo to me. It's watermarked "Magnum". Could you give me the url where you obtained it? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Hi Josiah

To get the URL for an image, just right click on it, then left click Properties.

I first saw the image on Judy Wood's site.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html

The original is hosted at www.magnumphotos.com

[Jack White]

The "smoke" mystery is solved. It is from the explosion and fire at Building Six

across the street.

Jack

Edited July 8, 2008 by Jack White

[Mike Williams]

The "smoke" mystery is solved. It is from the explosion and fire at Building Six

across the street.

Jack

Jack sorry thats not correct. Note the photo below.

Notice how compact the smoke is next to the building (indicated in a green oval).

Then note how much larger the plumes further away (indicated by the yellow oval)

The blue arrow indicates the point of origin of those plumes. I believe this is building 7.

Also of note is the very top of the photo, if in fact the smoke were being pushed up against the building with the blue arrow the plume would be higher on that side.

Best,

Mike

Edited July 8, 2008 by Mike Williams

[Len Colby]

Jack your last pinball just fell threw the chute, you can stop franticly pushing the flipper buttons and rocking the table the words ‘GAME OVER’ are flashing on the scoreboard.

• If there was only that one photo you might have a case but there are several showing heavy smoke emanating from the south face of building 7. See Mike’s excellent post above.

• Even more damming for your “theory” are the videos which also clearly show the smoke moving away from building 7 towards the WTC complex..

• The photo and video evidence is corroborated by dozens of firefighters who were at the scene. Either:

a) they are all lying/mistaken and the evidence faked

or

a self-proclaimed photo-analyst who mistook a Calder sculpture in front of the building for a fire in it and proclaimed that an engine part was in a trash can when it was obviously well in front of it etc etc is embarrassingly wrong once again

Call me a biased New Yorker but I’m putting my money of the city’s “bravest”.

• Your building 6 explosion theory was utterly debunked on 2 previous threads.

• The 1st photo in my previous post shows 7 WTC with a big hole in it and a section of 6 WTC with intact windows.

• You have no evidence for your claim the photos in your last post “were taken at about the same moment”

• You said a few times you have photos showing the south façade of 7 WTC intact after the collapse of 1 WTC. You even said you sent one to Fetzer. I don’t believe it. Let’s see it (them).

EDIT - Formatted for clarity, typos fixed

Edited July 8, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Now at Aulis 911 website...

Jack

[Len Colby]

The ambulance is on Vesey and appears to be on the corner of North End Av or about 1000 – 1200 feet northwest of and around corner from the south tower and 600 – 700 feet WNW from the north tower and close to Hudson. As all photos show the winds were blowing southeast that morning. Winds near the river can be quite strong.

See map: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=we...013218&z=16

There is no need to go through this in depth again as your 6 WTC theory was already thoroughly debunked on 2 previous threads. There are photos and videos showing 6 intact until the collapse of the north tower. There were numerous people in the area not a single one reports building 6 exploding; A EMT named Patricia Ormavic (sp?) reported entering the lobby of the building when the south tower collapsed and being sent away by guards.

[Mike Williams]

Now at Aulis 911 website...

Jack

Jack,

I certainly dont mean any disrespect, but I do notice that that page you posted was headed with "Jack Whites 911 studies"

How can I give this weight and how can anyone give this study weight, when you seem to have difficulty determining which way smoke is coming out of a building?

Mike

[Paul Rigby]

Fascinating piece:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008..._and_Nano-1.pdf

[Mike Williams]

General wind direction - there have been some better models on how the wind would be effected by the buildings, but can't locate at moment.

Peter,

Thanks for that graphic. It shows that smoke should be traveling from building 7 to building 6 not vice versa. Of course I do know there would be some issue with wind blockage between the buildings, however it also does explain why we see the smoke in that photo lifting higher as it moves away from the 7.

I am updating the photo to show wind direction with a red arrow.

Mike

[Jack White]

Why are you guys ignoring THE EXPLOSION OF BUILDING SIX? That is where

the smoke is coming from. The smoke is GOING UPWARD, not sideways.

The smoke is not coming from Building Seven.

It is very apparent in the photo.

Jack

[Jack White]

Have you ever ridden in the front seat of a convertible and notice

that your hair blows FORWARD toward the windshield? That is because

the "wind" blowing by creates a space of lower pressure behind the

windshield. Same principle as why an airplane wing LIFTS.

The wind from the north blowing by WTC7 created a lower pressure

on the south face of the building, attracting smoke TOWARD it...until

the smoke was higher than the building, and then the smoke blew

southward. That is also why the east and west faces of the building

were smoke free.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

This is getting sillier with each passing moment. Individual photos are snapshots in time. Videos however show moment to moment action. There's a lot of video taken by Steven Spak and others showing dark clouds of smoke roiling out of the south face of the building. It's not coming from WTC6 but is roiling out of the spaces on the south face of WTC7. What may not be clear in any particular photo becomes ever so clear in a video. I can't post what I have because I don't know whether or not its part of what's out there on the Internet. If someone could find some video of the south face it would settle this dispute once and for all.

By the way, Jack, there never was an "explosion" in WTC6. A great hunk of the North Tower took out the center of the building when it fell.

Have you ever ridden in the front seat of a convertible and notice

that your hair blows FORWARD toward the windshield? That is because

the "wind" blowing by creates a space of lower pressure behind the

windshield. Same principle as why an airplane wing LIFTS.

The wind from the north blowing by WTC7 created a lower pressure

on the south face of the building, attracting smoke TOWARD it...until

the smoke was higher than the building, and then the smoke blew

southward. That is also why the east and west faces of the building

were smoke free.

Jack

Edited July 8, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

Jack,

As anyone can see the plumes of smoke closest to the south face of 7 are much smaller and thicker than the ones further out towards 6. This is without doubt the point of origin. Anyone can see that without video.

My question is this in reply to the convertible analogy. How fast do you have to be going to create that vortex? I myself have had a Jeep Wrangler for most of my life, and living in Florida spend many a day with the top down......

Judging by the plumes of smoke moving south once they rose about the roof tops, I would say the winds that day were not very significant. 10 mph range....most likely.

Hardly enough to invoke the type of vortex you are suggesting.

Mike