I found the missing Jolt.

[MicahJava]

The Engineer didn't predict he gave a probability of collapse, if the creep continued, an the fires went unfought.

Engineers are not fortune tellers, they give probabilities, not predictions.

Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:

We posed to him the question that considering the structural
damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest
corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within
the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He
said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours,
which was pretty much right on the money because the building
collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires was at 12:10 PM.

5:00 PM - 5 hours = 12:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6 hours = 11:00 AM
5:22 PM - 5 hours = 12:22 PM
5:22 PM - 6 hours = 11:22 PM

This doesn't sound strange to you at all?

edit: This perfectly jives with this statement from FDNY spokesman Francis X. Gribbon:

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?pagewanted=all


More evidence that this prediction came way before there were large fires, if there were any fires at that time at all.

 

[beachnut]

That's me. After viewing the film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, I decided it might be fun to gather enough evidence to argue online with people about 9/11 conspiracies. Being a debunker seemed pretty fun, actually. Besides the stuff about the Pentagon and Shankesville, I was pretty compelled. I found enough information to perhaps write a constructive criticism regarding the CD portion of the film, but I ended up being pretty compelled by everything else. And now with reading stuff about more events like the OKC bombing, I see that the conspiracy crowd usually have a point.

New Pearl Harbor is BS, and all OKC CTs are lies, made up by idiots dumber than McVeigh.
You like to believe lies. And you offer no evidence to support the idiotic claims about 9/11, or OKC; it is google lies, believe lie syndrome based on being gullible. Lies made up to match your failed logic pattern of thinking... lots of people mature and figure out they were fooled. You will be upset.

The closest example I could find is One Meridian Plaza. After 11 hours of raging fires which spread floor-to-floor, an engineer on the scene did say that it may collapse. Also, three firefighters died. So they withdrew and made a collapse zone. It did not collapse.

They fought the fire, and the building was never used again. Even when they withdrew they fought the fire with water... No one fought the WTC 1, 2, 7 fires. Big fail.

And what did the steel do in One Meridian Plaza?
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/IMGw]For 9/11 truth followers, you are ready to move back in, who cares if the floor is sagging; oops steel fails in fire, even when the insulation is not knocked off. Darn, 9/11 truth is a movement of lies.
What does steel do in fire?
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg[/IMGw]
Steel fails in fire - (but when 9/11 truth followers fail to find evidence for their inside job, they bring up OKC lies... )

Steel fails in fire, 9/11 truth fails at telling the truth.
9/11 truth, evidence free for 14 years.


Then this gem...

... The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires was at 12:10 PM. ...

Wow, why would they not have photos before 12:10... I mean why would photographers not be at ground zero right away, taking photos at 10:30? lol, 9/11 truth, logic that build lies dumber than dirt.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:

We posed to him the question that considering the structural
damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest
corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within
the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He
said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours,
which was pretty much right on the money because the building
collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires was at 12:10 PM.

5:00 PM - 5 hours = 12:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6 hours = 11:00 AM
5:22 PM - 5 hours = 12:22 PM
5:22 PM - 6 hours = 11:22 PM

This doesn't sound strange to you at all?

edit: This perfectly jives with this statement from FDNY spokesman Francis X. Gribbon:

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?pagewanted=all


More evidence that this prediction came way before there were large fires, if there were any fires at that time at all.

No because he gave a reasoned accessment a probability that came true, would you be debating this if he had been . wrong?

 

[pgimeno]

You are saying there is no need to show calculations and that you can render my analysis invalid without talking any science or math. Just unbelievable.

Yes, I'm saying that you're basing your analysis on a false premise. A false premise leads to conclusions that don't follow from the analysis.

You can believe it or not, but that's how logic works. It's simple, really.

 

[MicahJava]

New Pearl Harbor is BS, and all OKC CTs are lies, made up by idiots dumber than McVeigh.
You like to believe lies. And you offer no evidence to support the idiotic claims about 9/11, or OKC; it is google lies, believe lie syndrome based on being gullible. Lies made up to match your failed logic pattern of thinking... lots of people mature and figure out they were fooled. You will be upset.

Why are you against OKC stuff? I gave you plenty of evidence that the FBI is covering up certain video tapes from surveillance cameras. Also, you seem to think that Terrance Yeakey's death was a suicide, which by default means you think the people closest to him are lying.

They fought the fire, and the building was never used again. Even when they withdrew they fought the fire with water... No one fought the WTC 1, 2, 7 fires. Big fail.

And what did the steel do in One Meridian Plaza?
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/IMGw]For 9/11 truth followers, you are ready to move back in, who cares if the floor is sagging; oops steel fails in fire, even when the insulation is not knocked off. Darn, 9/11 truth is a movement of lies.
What does steel do in fire?
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg[/IMGw]
Steel fails in fire - (but when 9/11 truth followers fail to find evidence for their inside job, they bring up OKC lies... )

Steel fails in fire, 9/11 truth fails at telling the truth.
9/11 truth, evidence free for 14 years.

The steel from the OMP picture slowly and progressively sagged. It did not suddenly fail. How come, then, do two of the most cited official explanations of the collapse have it initiating from thermal expansion?

Then this gem...

Wow, why would they not have photos before 12:10... I mean why would photographers not be at ground zero right away, taking photos at 10:30? lol, 9/11 truth, logic that build lies dumber than dirt.

What?? There were photographers in buildings far enough away who kept filming. There were helicopters filming the aftermath.

 

[pgimeno]

The closest example I could find is One Meridian Plaza. After 11 hours of raging fires which spread floor-to-floor, an engineer on the scene did say that it may collapse. Also, three firefighters died. So they withdrew and made a collapse zone. It did not collapse.

Yeah, the closest example that did not collapse didn't collapse.

Remember the Windsor building in Madrid? The one with a concrete core and a steel perimeter.

 

[MicahJava]

No because he gave a reasoned accessment a probability that came true,

On what basis could any person say at 11:30 that the building would collapse?

would you be debating this if he had been . wrong?

There is no similar example that you could give me. Your closest example is a building that already had 11 hours of gigantic fires and never collapsed, and then the person on the scene never said with certainty that it would collapse.

 

[MicahJava]

Yeah, the closest example that did not collapse didn't collapse.

Remember the Windsor building in Madrid? The one with a concrete core and a steel perimeter.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-antes.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-despues.jpg[/qimg]

I mean an example of a building that collapsed at the approximate time someone predicted it would.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

On what basis could any person say at 11:30 that the building would collapse?




There is no similar example that you could give me. Your closest example is a building that already had 11 hours of gigantic fires and never collapsed, and then the person on the scene never said with certainty that it would collapse.

Yes if the fires continued unfought, the steel had a potential to fail.

 

[MicahJava]

Yes if the fires continued unfought, the steel had a potential to fail.

"Potential to fail" isn't going to cut it for what may be a very clear case of criminal foreknowledge of an unprecedented event.

"5-6 hours" seemed like plenty of time to charge the sprinkler systems with the Siamese fittings, but for some reason the feeling at the time was that it would be better to stay away from the building. Perhaps WTC 7 was intentionally allowed to continue burning.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

"Potential to fail" isn't going to cut it for what may be a very clear case of criminal foreknowledge of an unprecedented event.

"5-6 hours" seemed like plenty of time to charge the sprinkler systems with the Siamese fittings, but for some reason the feeling at the time was that it would be better to stay away from the building. Perhaps WTC 7 was intentionally allowed to continue burning.

Charge the sprinklers, do you know how insane that is, do you know what water pressure would be required?

There is a reason tall buildings have internal water distribution systems.

Your talking about lifting water higher than the pipes can sustain the pressure.

If the water tanks are damaged there is no physical way to charge the sprinklers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Charge the sprinklers, do you know how insane that is, do you know what water pressure would be required?

There is a reason tall buildings have internal water distribution systems.

Your talking about lifting water higher than the pipes can sustain the pressure.

If the water tanks are damaged there is no physical way to charge the sprinklers.

The PVC pipe in the buildings could only hold 450 psi, without power to work the pumps the pipes would have had to have held, 950-1075 psi.

 

[NoahFence]

It is well known that the regulars on this forum who deny controlled demolition at all costs, in the face of well reasoned arguments for its use on 911, have to be active participants in the cover-up of what actually occurred on 911.

The disingenuous arguments used and the inordinate amount of time spent on this type of forum, by those individuals, gives them away. You are probably one as your arguments are exceedingly disingenuous and you spend enormous amounts of time on this forum.

Oh man, that's adorable.
Best and brightest!

 

[ozeco41]

"Potential to fail" isn't going to cut it for what may be a very clear case of criminal foreknowledge of an unprecedented event.

"5-6 hours" seemed like plenty of time to charge the sprinkler systems with the Siamese fittings, but for some reason the feeling at the time was that it would be better to stay away from the building. Perhaps WTC 7 was intentionally allowed to continue burning.

You a still arguing the wrong situation MicahJava.

It was an emergency scenario with decisions taken by the emergency commander(s).

Such persons take as fact that steel buildings with unfought extensive fires are at risk of collapse. That is simple engineering fact and truther disbelief or dishonesty after the event does not change it. Even if there had been one thinking limited conspiracy theorist in the command scenario on that day any attempt by such a person to make truther style stupid decisions would have seen him/her overruled and dismissed the scene. There is no evidence that there was such a person in the command team. Fortunately.

The priority objective in such a scenario is saving life no matter how callously truthers disregard that aspect in 20/20 hindsight.

WTC7 has been evacuated. Saving the building secondary priority.

There had been hundreds of rescue and fire service personnel killed.

Rescue operations were under way.

Human and materiel resources were limited.

No emergency controller would criticise the decision that had to be taken and was taken. BTW the fact that the building DID collapse does not change the validity of the choice to terminate fire fighting and establish a safety zone.

It would still have been a correct decision if the building had not collapsed.

Fortunately I doubt that we would ever see a person with the thinking limitations of conspiracy theorists in such an emergency command situation. The experience. training and paths to command promotion that such persons undergo effectively filter out most persons who are mentally incompetent for the demand of a real time high pressure job in the real world.


Your attempt to create in hindsight a case for criminal charges is irrelevant. Even if you could create the case NOW in 2016 it does not affect the validity of the 2001 decisions taken on that day. And you cannot even present a prima facie case. NOW. With full hindsight.

 

[NoahFence]

On what basis could any person say at 11:30 that the building would collapse?

By 11:30 they knew there would be no firefighting efforts. Their highly educated and experienced opinion was it would most likely collapse as a result. And it did.

Steel doesn't fare well in a fire. Anyone bright enough to tie their own shoes knows that. So, they know unchecked fire in a steel building could cause a collapse.
Easy.

 

[MicahJava]

Charge the sprinklers, do you know how insane that is, do you know what water pressure would be required?

There is a reason tall buildings have internal water distribution systems.

Your talking about lifting water higher than the pipes can sustain the pressure.

If the water tanks are damaged there is no physical way to charge the sprinklers.

It didn't seem insane to these guys:

"The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --"
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.

When we had first entered down Vesey Street, I heard a command post or a Division looking for 6 Truck and this came to my attention because that was my former company. I was with 6 Truck and 9 Engine up until March last year when I transferred in. I was very worried about those guys in 6 Truck, yet I didn't want to abandon my men with the Engine, because we were
doing our job. We were supplying the Tower Ladder and we were doing our own thing. I don't know what else. Do you want me to keep going what we did that day?
Q. Pretty much -- after the collapse, that's pretty much. You know, like after you were relaying water, that's enough.

-Firefighter Kevin Howe

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110469.PDF


Also, what's with all those photographs of a high-pressure hose being used on WTC 6?

 

[MicahJava]

You a still arguing the wrong situation MicahJava.

It was an emergency scenario with decisions taken by the emergency commander(s).

Such persons take as fact that steel buildings with unfought extensive fires are at risk of collapse. That is simple engineering fact and truther disbelief or dishonesty after the event does not change it. Even if there had been one thinking limited conspiracy theorist in the command scenario on that day any attempt by such a person to make truther style stupid decisions would have seen him/her overruled and dismissed the scene. There is no evidence that there was such a person in the command team. Fortunately.

The priority objective in such a scenario is saving life no matter how callously truthers disregard that aspect in 20/20 hindsight.

WTC7 has been evacuated. Saving the building secondary priority.

There had been hundreds of rescue and fire service personnel killed.

Rescue operations were under way.

Human and materiel resources were limited.

No emergency controller would criticise the decision that had to be taken and was taken. BTW the fact that the building DID collapse does not change the validity of the choice to terminate fire fighting and establish a safety zone.

It would still have been a correct decision if the building had not collapsed.

Fortunately I doubt that we would ever see a person with the thinking limitations of conspiracy theorists in such an emergency command situation. The experience. training and paths to command promotion that such persons undergo effectively filter out most persons who are mentally incompetent for the demand of a real time high pressure job in the real world.


Your attempt to create in hindsight a case for criminal charges is irrelevant. Even if you could create the case NOW in 2016 it does not affect the validity of the 2001 decisions taken on that day. And you cannot even present a prima facie case. NOW. With full hindsight.

Everything you just described would only hinder a person's ability to predict the hour in which the skyscraper would collapse. In your scenario, the engineer would have to have a 100% perfect understanding of the situation (even better than we have now, actually), not blinded by things like the Twin Towers collapse and the deaths of firefighters. Weird.

It is apparent that once the subject of WTC 7 foreknowledge gets brung up, everybody wakes up and leaps with half-truths and strawmen and bogus claims about how collapse from unfought fires is "inevitable". No thanks.

 

[Axxman300]

"Potential to fail" isn't going to cut it for what may be a very clear case of criminal foreknowledge of an unprecedented event.

"5-6 hours" seemed like plenty of time to charge the sprinkler systems with the Siamese fittings, but for some reason the feeling at the time was that it would be better to stay away from the building. Perhaps WTC 7 was intentionally allowed to continue burning.

It wasn't unprecedented, two steel framed high rises had just collapsed from fire and impact damage...like a few hours before. Precedent went out the window, and a good Incident Command would have known this to be true and played it safe.

There were predictions of other damaged WTC buildings coming down too on 911, and they didn't. You ignore this fact.

Like ozeco41 said, by 10:30 AM EST, the emergency operation had changed from fire & rescue, to search & rescue. At that time there were 343 firefighters dead, more injured, and still more unaccounted for due to scattering when the towers fell. Add in the 3,000 people trapped inside the towers when they came down and the idea that the FDNY is going to waste time and resources on an EMPTY BUILDING would have been the real crime.

The focus was on rescuing people, not on property. Everything inside 7 could be replaced, and there is a new WTC7 in its place today. 7 is the greatest non-event in CT history.

 

[TJM]

"Potential to fail" isn't going to cut it for what may be a very clear case of criminal foreknowledge of an unprecedented event.

"5-6 hours" seemed like plenty of time to charge the sprinkler systems with the Siamese fittings, but for some reason the feeling at the time was that it would be better to stay away from the building. Perhaps WTC 7 was intentionally allowed to continue burning.

That reason being, ****, I don't know, is maybe, just maybe they just lost 343 members of the FDNY in two building collapses and didn't want to lose anymore in a third that's been evacuated?

 

[MicahJava]

That reason being, ****, I don't know, is maybe, just maybe they just lost 343 members of the FDNY in two building collapses and didn't want to lose anymore in a third that's been evacuated?

Please explain how fear of more dead firefighters could lead to a person correctly predicting the hour in which a skyscraper would collapse from structural failure. I'm thinking that would only negatively affect one's rationality. Or do you think Peter Hayden is not remembering correctly about the engineer? I made some a FOIA requests to NIST for a their interview transcripts of a few fire chiefs who were around WTC 7, maybe we can learn more if they don't reject my request for bogus reasons.

This full extent of the foreknowledge issue was always dodged the last time I brought it up. Always with some kind of strawman or irrelevant tangent with you guys. No thank you.