The Enigma of The Fires
Christopher Briggs Sun, 12/03/2006 - 7:46am
Has anyone here carefully watched the new video footage of the Twin Towers, mostly from the perspective of the North Tower? I refer to the "What We Saw" home movie that has just been put on the net.
This clearly shows that contrary to what some 911 Truth people have said, that the fire worsens rapidly - very far from going out. Given that I don't live in New York, I am guessing that the side of the building I am speaking of is the Western face of the tower - but anyhow, you can see the gaping hole (think that is the North face) and when the video starts only a few puffs of smoke on this Western face (forgive me if you know it not to be West, I as said don't live in New York).
Anyhow, the rapid progression of the fire is easily seen by watching this Western face. Indeed it begs more questions than it answers. The whole tower above the damaged section is soon smoking, and we see smoke coming out even at the roof area. Now I just don't understand how the fire spread so rapidly from the damage some 15 floors down, all the way up to the top. Can someone explain this to me? By the time that the South Tower collapses (we see only the enormous dust clouds on this) the whole North Tower is a black smoking wreck above the damage, and there are areas of very fierce burning flames - on the face that at the beginning was outwardly least affected by what had happened.
Another point of interest is just before the collapse of the South Tower, the camera points to street level, where the existance of smoke is documented. Unfortunately the collapse of the South Tower becomes the focus of the cameraman's attention, and the lens turns to the dust clouds from that.
The existance of another third aeroplane is clearly documented in this footage too, not just the police helicopter, so this video is very interesting from that perspective.
Anyhow to summarise. This video appears to contradict the 911 Truth claim that the fires in the towers "were almost out", but on the other hand, how in heaven's name did these conflarations spread so quickly through the floors? What do we make of the dust at street level before the collapse of the first tower, and what is the third aeroplane.
Finally, though I am not sure of its real importance, the lady making the video seems to think that the second plane was a military plane. Now that is interesting. Why would she think that? This is the first time I have anyone suggest this, but this is an eyewitness while the thing was happening. That indeed is a very interesting comment.
- Christopher Briggs's blog
- Login to post comments
The increase in smoke does
The increase in smoke does not necessarily mean an increase in the level or intensity of the fire, rather the opposite.
An efficient, hot fire will produce little little waste. Black, choking smoke is indicative of a fuel rich, oxygen starved fire. Not the type of fire that supposedly reduce hundreds of tons of steel reinforced concrete to dust.
But there were flames
No, and I'd agree with you there. However, spacially the area affected is undoubtedly spreading very rapidly, and we see flames too.
Furthermore, there are still pictures available showing the other side of the tower (not visible here), where there are at least ten floors in a violent conflaration - where the outer steel trusses really are glowing red hot. I have not got the URL right now, but I know that I have seen these pictures.
Nevertheless, the questions begged by all this are still enormous. I thought that they had put in defences against the spreading of fire back in the seventies, so I do not understand how the fires were able to progress upward through to the top.
Neither does any of this explain the molten metal, either that which was seen flowing from the South Tower, or that which was found under the ruins after the disaster on 9/11.
Neither, for that matter, does it explain how the towers exploded rather than collapsing, top down right the way down.
So I would in no way like anyone to think that I am beginning to think that the official version be right after all. That is plainly absurd.
glowing columns
There are several instances where you can clearly see the glowing columns.... but look for the fire.... every one of the columns on the single floor are glowing red hot..... you can see this in several places.... this is the thermite!! ..... placed with-in the box columns.... it is heating these columns from the inside out.
these fires couldn't have been that hot to cause all of these coulmns to be glowing in this manner...
the thermite could have been delivered using the ceramic cauldron..... or in a similar manner been sprayed on the inside of the coulmn in paste form then ignited
the fire was not efficient enough.... and it didn't burn nearly long enough.... especially considering that the fire suppression system was working....
Sort of
We are supposed to be claiming in the fires in the South Tower were going out (not the fires in both the towers). It has been accepted for some time that the North Tower fires were not going out. For example:
"The often-repeated assertion that the fires in the Twin Towers were becoming less severe prior to the collapses is only partially true: The evidence shows that the South Tower's fires remained confined to a limited area and were dwindling before its collapse; but it shows that the North Tower's fires became more severe after the collapse of the South Tower."
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/fires.html
NIST accepts some (but, I think, not all) of the South Tower fires were going out.
Thanks for this
Thank you for this information. I was not aware of this position to the 911 Truth Movement, and have clearly been operating on a misunderstanding.
This said, though, that the fires spread in the North Tower after the South Tower collapsed is interesting. What are the possible mechanics behind this?
And my questions regarding the spread of the fires upward to the top of the tower remain. As said I thought that measures where put in place to prevent this. So how did the fire and smoke get to the top of the tower so quickly?
I find this very odd indeed.
"I was not aware of this
"I was not aware of this position to the 911 Truth Movement"
To assume that there is some "position" that the "Truth Movement" takes
on any given point is assuming too much.
With regards to the fires, most people in the truth movement understand
that the NIST report, while failing in its conclusions, does provide a
tremendous amount of valid DATA. The DATA does not support the
subjective and biased CONCLUSIONS. If you look at the NIST reports
DATA for the temperatures of the fires, you will see that they are not
hot enough to either melt steel OR provide a condition that would
cause the steel to weaken significantly. Despite ranting by debunkers
that a temperature of 600'F-1000'F would weaken the steel, there is no
supporting evidence that prolonged fires existed at these temperatures
and, more importantly, do not take into consideration that a great deal
of the heat in the steel would have been transferred along the columns
and interconnecting structure. Remember that after the planes hit and
the fuel ignited what was left was an OFFICE FIRE - not a series of
blow torches!
In addition, remember that the NIST report clearly states that the
towers would not have collapsed were it not for "widely displaced
fireproofing". However, again their conclusion
that such fireproofing was dislodged is only an ASSUMPTION and there
is NO proof of this. In fact, the idea that the fireproofing was dislodged
is A RESULT of the fact that they couldn't explain the towers collapse
by fire without it. It is NOT the case that they looked at the steel and
saw that the fireproofing had come off and lead them to their conclusions.
YES there were fires. Yes there was smoke. Yes the fire spread.
No, the fires were not the cause of the collapse.
Comment about type of plane
I've seen in videos or read in articles a few comments from eyewitnesses who said the planes did not look like a commercial aircraft. One lady, who was on the Jersey side of the harbor, and was watching the first fire burn when the 2nd plane hit, clearly states that the second plane did not look like a normal U.S. plane (I don't remember the exact words). Her insinuation was clear - we were being attacked by non-american planes. I have personally seen several videos of the 2nd plane and what strikes me is its color...or lack of it.. the plane's exterior is very very dark, as if it was camouflaged. I keep trying to figure out if its just the shadows from the towers that is camouflaging it. I also can't tell if there are typical commercial aircraft windows or not. It's also clear that there is something being carried beneath the aircraft.
If you look at the brief video of the first plane...even from a distance, that plane looks very different from a normal commerical aircraft. Eyewitnesses of the first plane reported it had no windows as well.
I've often wondered if there are more videos out there that we haven't seen of all the planes..perhaps personal videos of people who fear publicizing them. There has to be tons of cameras in or near Manhattan that captured the event.
Window Washers
Is this the video where you can see the window washers on the side of WTC building 7....I have always wondered if they saw anything interesting that day..... they had to get off the scafolding that day on the roof then make their way down through the building.... I bet they saw a great deal.... from the penthouse to the lobby.
Did they make it out?