Weirdness around WTC7 well before it went down

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/10/ukO3hENZ9zA

Huge amount of debris north of WTC7, and burnt cars on the north side of WTC, where they should have been shielded from the WTC debris. Also, several floors of blown out windows on the north face of WTC7.

Not clear what caused the series of total vehicle burn outs north of WTC7, on west broadway...

[SDuderstadt]

1. Dude...

We have been through this before. How do you know the cars weren't moved after they were burned to make room for emergency vehicles?

Duh.

[zappaman]

2. No dude

that's a sensible answer.
something just doesn't look right...

[SDuderstadt]

4. Conspiracists will, of course....

ignore the fact that the video was shot nearly 4 1/2 hours AFTER the collapse of the towers.

Duh.

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. "something just doesn't look right..."

Yeah, uninquisitive, intellectually dishonest people will ignore the fact that there's burnt debris around the vehicles, and ignore the fact that there aren't and drag marks in the debris on the streets or around the vehicles. They will also fail to ask themselves why there's a burnt out bus, as well as a few other vehicles, in the middle of the road if the vehicles had been "moved after they were burned to make room for emergency vehicles"...

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. Did you even watch the video, or are you just babbling on about something you know nothing about

(again)? It's apparent, through your comment, that you have NOT watched the video. It appears to have been shot after the collapse of the towers, but before the collapse of Building 7. These vehicles weren't moved to where they are, it appears that they were abandoned where they are sitting.

Watch the video first, then comment, so you don't make yourself look so uninformed and foolish.

"We have been through this before. How do you know the cars weren't moved after they were burned to make room for emergency vehicles?"

How do you know anything if you haven't taken the time to watch the video before commenting? If you have some proof that they were moved, post it. Your speculation doesn't cut it in this case.

[zappaman]

5. I watched it

It shows devastation at a place where 2 buildings consisting of 110 floors each and weighing hundreds of millions of pounds collapsed.
I find nothing odd about the destruction and can't fathom the intent of the OP.
Seriously, what is the point?
That that kind of destruction should be contained in a limited area?

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. I think the point was that the vehicles were behind WTC 7, and this damage

was done before the collapse of WTC 7... I could be reading it wrong, though.

I will have to say this, however... this video gave me a new perspective of the intensity of the fires in WTC 7. I had never seen them that close before... the far away still shots I've seen didn't do justice to the intensity of the fires...

One thing I'm trying to reconcile right now, though, is that at 4:28 in the video, it shows a street sign that says Greenwich & Barclay, right in front of what appears to be WTC 7.. then at 5:12 he says they are at West Broadway & Barclay, which is behind WTC 7. Of course, the video has been stopped and started, so I know they could have walked to a different location, but the map I'm looking at doesn't show Greenwich anywhere near Barclay.. what am I missing??

I couldn't get the picture to load right, so go to this link, then click on the pic on the right with the street names on it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_site#September_11_attacks

[spooked911]

9. thanks for looking at it

it is interesting how the fires are raging on the west side of WTC7, when the collapse was supposedly started by fires on the east side.

I don't understand the Greenwich&Barclay reference either, unless Greenwich starts before West Broadway takes over at that point next to WTC7.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. Greenwich dead-ends at Barclay from the north

So it doesn't show up (labeled) in that image. Per Google Maps, the intersection of Greenwich and Barclay is about halfway between the intersections with Washington and West Broadway, and Greenwich is almost parallel to Washington. I think that will help.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Thanks for the info.. n/t

[spooked911]

8. look at the video

it is very early on after the WTC towers went down. Nothing was moved.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Look at the time stamp on the video...

Dude.

Duh.

[jberryhill]

12. Nothing was moved in six hours?

Let alone things that were moved prior to the collapse, which would have been ignited by flaming debris from the aircraft impacts, this video was shot some six hours after the first collapse, if you bother to look at it.

[spooked911]

14. Does it really look like vehicles were moved into the middle of West Broadway?

and onto Barclay street, parked neatly? Honestly?

Could you rephrase your comment about flaming debris, because it's not clear what you are saying there. Thanks.

[jberryhill]

15. I didn't say anything about flaming debris...

I was responding to your demonstrably false comment that the video was taken just after the collapse.

No, I do not know how every vehicle in lower Manhattan came to be at any particular spot. Neither do you. But, yes, I understand that there is a certain kind of mindset that equates an "I don't know" to "fill in fantastically improbable hypothesis supported by nothing here".

Quite apparently, none of those vehicles have dead bodies in them, so perhaps you might regale us with a tale of the black ops crew that came and removed them. The absence of bodies in any of the vehicles suggests that they were parked or stopped there, quite possibly because there was a jet airliner crash into a building, which brought all traffic to a standstill.

However, your assertion about how the video was shot soon after the collapses, given the time stamp at the beginning, speaks volumes about your critical thinking and analytical skills. And that is what I was responding to.

[spooked911]

16. You certainly did mention flaming debris, and I wanted clarification on whcih flaming debris you

meant-- from the towers going down or from the planes.

I gave no hypothesis, fantastic or otherwise.

I think it's pretty clear the vehicles were parked there, the owners and drivers and passengers had fled before the firestorm. The big question is what caused that firestorm?

Also, I didn't mean to imply the video was right after the towers went down, I just meant it was relatively early in terms of the aftermath of the towers going down. I.e. within hours, not days, and this is relevant because the cars were less likely to be moved into the middle of the street in that time frame.

[jberryhill]

17. "firestorm"

It looks like some vehicles were partially burned, and that there is a lot of paper lying around in various states of burning or not burning.

I'm fascinated by this "firestorm". When did it occur?

Given that soon after the impacts, every camera in miles was trained on the event, then the firestorm should have been visible, no?

And, yes, I did mention flaming debris in passing. By "flaming debris" I mean debris, which is flaming.

[spooked911]

20. and I asked you a question about which flaming debris you meant-- TWICE

and you evaded the question twice, for some reason.

[zappaman]

18. EMERGENCY

"Also, I didn't mean to imply the video was right after the towers went down, I just meant it was relatively early in terms of the aftermath of the towers going down. I.e. within hours, not days, and this is relevant because the cars were less likely to be moved into the middle of the street in that time frame."

Do you understand what was happening that day at all?
The panic, the pandemonium?
It was a catastrophe and an emergency situation.
Cars might have just stopped in the middle of the street cuz there was no where to go and maybe running for your life was a better option.
Or moved hurriedly by the NYPD or NYFD as they desperately tried to save lives.
Do you even try to think these things thru or just look for any tiny piece of evidence you irrationally think boosters your "mini-nukes" theory?

This is truly an embarrassment to this board and shameful to anyone who lost someone that day.
Just stop already.

[spooked911]

19. what are you talking about?

I wasn't promoting nukes here. And I do not disagree with your emergency scenario. In fact, it bolsters my point.

As far as embarrassment and shame, you're being more ridiculous than normal, as my post is quite innocuous. I don't know exactly what has your "knickers in a twist" but you are being quite silly.

[zappaman]

21. so, you now DON'T believe "mini-nukes" took down the towers?

welcome to the real world!