pictures of fires in WTC1

defaultdotxbe

Drunken Shikigami
defaultdotxbe
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
7,474
these are some pictures i found (ironically on a torrent site for conspiracy stuff) and i had not seen them before, they show fairly clearly how bad the fires in tower 1 were

these pictures are after the collapse of WTC2 so the argument that "they were going out towards the end" doesnt fly, it also shows large fires several floors above the impact site, showing that they were spreading quite rapidly

click the link below each pic for a larger version

normal_GJS-WTC19.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC19.jpg

normal_GJS-WTC22.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC22.jpg

normal_GJS-WTC24.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC24.jpg

normal_GJS-WTC25.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC25.jpg

normal_GJS-WTC26.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC26.jpg

normal_GJS-WTC27.jpg

http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC27.jpg
 
Yes, those are stunning large photos. NIST NCSTAR 1-5A contains many photos, with text and graphics, illustrating the progression of the fires, but of course none are high-res. It's hard to get a sense of scale with smaller photos, especially when they're closeups and don't show any background.

By the way, hotlinking is a no-no here. The "VB Image Host" menu at the top of the page will take you to JREF hosting.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
these are some pictures i found (ironically on a torrent site for conspiracy stuff) and i had not seen them before, they show fairly clearly how bad the fires in tower 1 were

these pictures are after the collapse of WTC2 so the argument that "they were going out towards the end" doesnt fly, it also shows large fires several floors above the impact site, showing that they were spreading quite rapidly
Click to expand...

The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
Click to expand...

Self-healing steel?
 
Miragememories said:
The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
Click to expand...

Except for, y'know, being hideously warped.

DM
 
He can't. It's cobblers.

Those pictures really bring home what a giant furnace that tower became; you would really have to suspend disbelief to entertain notions that the fire couldn't have contributed to the collapse that we all saw.
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.
Click to expand...
no, as i pointed out these pictures are after the collapse fo WTC2, meaning the fires in WTC1 had been burning for over an hour already and are clearly showing no signs of going out

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.
Click to expand...
these pictures are within 20-30 minutes of the collapse
 
All those photos were taken after 10AM, MM.

Could you please provide some evidence that the fires extinguished before the buildings collapsed?
 
Miragememories said:
The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
Click to expand...

I see.

You don't know very much about steel construction, do you?
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. Showing the fireball would not illustrate the point that the fires in WTC 1 were still raging after the collapse of WTC 2 and thus right before it collapsed.

Additionally I would like to know what evidence you have that the fires were, contrary to the referenced photos, not still blazing away a the moment of collapse?

And how does that now deformed, but still carrying additional loads, steel recover its strength?
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.

MM
Click to expand...

Those pictures were taken moments before 1 WTC's collapse. Do you have a later picture or testimony that indicates that what we see here had abated by the time of the collapse ? Of course you don't, because videos of the collapse itself for 1 WTC show that the fires were still just as bad when the thing came down.
 
Okay obviously it was after 10 a.m.

Obviously we can see lots of pretty flames (something you guys only dream about in your WTC7 arguments).

My point about capturing the fireball is that we don't have smelter furnace evidence here just because some of us are seeing pictures for the first time. I had those pictures months ago and then as now saw nothing special in them.

Steel does recover strength when it cools.

There is no proof that a sufficient amount structural steel was heat weakened to the point that a collapse of either tower would have occurred.

Thorough weather proofing removal is an assumption without proof.

I could go on and on but you clowns just cluster about any contrary post like a bunch of rabid dogs desperate for prey.

Believe what you want to believe..you will and do anyway.

There's no point or need to get into renewed debate over WTC 1 & 2 when WTC7 provides all the real proof necessary of an inside job.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!

You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.

The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.
Click to expand...

Another day, another chance to be mind-numbingly ignorant.

WTC 1, south side 5 1/2 minutes before collapse.

8790461136f07c80d.jpg



WTC 1, north side as collapse begins.

8790461136f0a2ed4.jpg


Plus, you don't seem to be aware that steel contracts when it cools, as well as expanding when it's heated.

Why don't you ever give a crap, MirageMemories? I know it's much easier to fantasize than to learn, but do you really feel good about yourself at the end of each day?
 
Miragememories said:
There's no point or need to get into renewed debate over WTC 1 & 2 when WTC7 provides all the real proof necessary of an inside job.

MM
Click to expand...
Do you have a job or ever been to school? If so, are you allowed to make statements without supporting them in any way? Didn't your manager or teachers ever ask you to "show your work"?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
they are hotlinked from my own website, isnt that acceptable?
Click to expand...
You may want to post that question in forum management. I can think of several reasons why they wouldn't make an exception, but it would be good to know.
 
Isn't it amazing that an "oxygen-starved fire" would actually spread?
 
Miragememories said:
Steel does recover strength when it cools.
MM
Click to expand...

...but what happened to this particular steel, from the time it started to heat to the time it is actually cooled, is the real question...isn't it. Was it mangled? Did it lose significant integrity? Did it bend? Did it fail?

The real question is...did the form of the steel change, during the time it was exposed to heat, enough to inhibit it's ability to stop the collapse?

If you answer "No"...you must show your work in coming to that conclusion.
 
I think that MM is under the impression that the steel trusses would bounce back into shape when cooled , and all the deformation in the supporting columns would miraculously resolve itself also.
Is that so MM?
 
MM has also never heard of annealing.

However, the idea of a Troother talking out of his hat about something he knows nothing about, thereby frothingly asserting something that is dead wrong, is hardly unusual.
 
R.Mackey said:
MM has also never heard of annealing.

However, the idea of a Troother talking out of his hat about something he knows nothing about, thereby frothingly asserting something that is dead wrong, is hardly unusual.
Click to expand...

If I know MM, he will now go "google" the word annealing and return claiming to be an expert on it...maybe...maybe he'll prove me wrong.

TAM:)
 
Miragememories said:
The operative word is "were"!
Click to expand...

Should the word "are" be used? That wouldn't make sense at all since this is a past tense thing.

Miragememories said:
You could just as easily show photos including the initial fireball to attempt to illustrate your point.
Click to expand...

That's a horrible point, these photo's were taken long after the initial fireball.

Miragememories said:
The fact is, at the time of collapse, the fire in WTC1 was no where near that involved, and the steel in areas previously subjected to fire would have recovered any lost strength.
MM
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? The fires in the North Tower got worse as the day went one. Just watch the Bob and Bri video.

early on:
Fireprogression1.jpg


a little later:
fireprogression2.jpg


later:
fireprogression3.jpg


Time of the South Tower being struck:
fireprogression4.jpg


After the collapse of the South Tower:
fireprogression5.jpg


Do those appear to be improving fire conditions to you? At about the same time these pictures were taken the fires were raging on the Southern face of the building you see in the first post of this thread.
 
The photos in the first post also clearly show why NIST modeled the fires moving from the plane's entry point on the north face to the south face, which is the direction the top of the building started to lean before collapse initiation. Most of the collapse videos that the truthers love so much were taken from cameras in midtown -- i.e., showing the north face rather than the heavily inflamed south face -- hence their notion that the fires were just about out before the collapse.


T.A.M. said:
If I know MM, he will now go "google" the word annealing and return claiming to be an expert on it...maybe...maybe he'll prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


There are some YouTube videos matching the keyword "annealing", so watching those will be the truther equivalent of getting a PhD in metallurgy.
 
Miragememories said:
There's no point or need to get into renewed debate over WTC 1 & 2 when WTC7 provides all the real proof necessary of an inside job.

MM
Click to expand...

In other words, you've lost this particular argument. There's no way you can convince any rational person that WTC 1 or 2 so much as hint at an inside job, so you fall back to the one position left to you - where there are still a few insignificant gaps for the truth movement to be the god of. Your post is, as I believe the kids are saying these days, made of fail.
 
These are the CTers comments that make me smile.........because these are the conversations that will take place when LC goes main stream. It may gain some momentum due marketing etc.....but then "real" debates and conversations will occur and you will brought back to 12 people standing on a street corner with a banner.........talking about remember when we had a month when people paid attention to us.
 
On the most zoomed in of the photos in the OP, is it just me or does the south west corner (closest to the camera, hole in corner panel) appear to be twisting/bulging outward?
 
Does MM live in City of Heroes, where even inanimate objects have a regeneration rate?

If so, doesn't he know that almost everything in CoH exploded at one point in time, and they only recently stopped exploding?
 
Gravy said:
You may want to post that question in forum management. I can think of several reasons why they wouldn't make an exception, but it would be good to know.
Click to expand...
I've never been cited by the mods for hotlinking from my own site. The problem w/ hotlinking is it uses the bandwidth of an external site, so it is "stealing" that bandwidth. But you can't steal from yourself! And if hotlinking was a no-no they could just disable the img tag.
 
and the troll said

Miragememories said:
Okay obviously it was after 10 a.m.
Obviously we can see lots of pretty flames (something you guys only dream about in your WTC7 arguments).
Click to expand...
excuse me.. pretty flames? what you cant see in that photo are the people burning to death. This is something you can trivialize that easily? and you wonder why we have utter contempt for people like you?
There is no proof that a sufficient amount structural steel was heat weakened to the point that a collapse of either tower would have occurred.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that a sufficient amount of steel was not heated and weakened to the point that a collapse of either tower would not have occurred.

There. See how that works?
 
Mancman said:
On the most zoomed in of the photos in the OP, is it just me or does the south west corner (closest to the camera, hole in corner panel) appear to be twisting/bulging outward?
Click to expand...

Looks like that at first glance, but if you look closely at the surrounding structure there are no signs of any results of twisting or bulging.
I think its a black smoke on white background optical illusion.
Black smoke is pouring out of the top left hand corner of that missing corner "panel".
The later pictures show clear evidence of deformation on the face, if you can bear to watch the final collapse moment on video, you can see the perimeter columns spring back outwards as the trusses give way.
Horrible viewing.
 
Last edited:
I find it funny that the conspiracy theorists say the fires had died down in spots because that's exactly what the NIST said helped the collapse!

Page 150 "Thermal Weakening of the Structure"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

The trusses cooled and contracted which helped pull the columns in.

So if the building cooled it only PROVES THE NIST CORRECT! Heh!
 
There is no proof that a sufficient amount structural steel was heat weakened to the point that a collapse of either tower would have occurred.
Click to expand...
A W Smith said:
There is no proof that a sufficient amount of steel was not heated and weakened to the point that a collapse of either tower would not have occurred.

There. See how that works?
Click to expand...

Actually NIST at least has their computer generated fire models that closely match the observed fires and which show heating would have occured whereas all the CT's have is "there's no empirical evidence of such heating". They attempt to then have lack of empirical evidence be a counter to circumstantial evidence. It doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom