I found the missing Jolt.

[ozeco41]

Everything you just described would only hinder a person's ability to predict the hour in which the skyscraper would collapse.

I'm well aware that you are determined to avoid recognition of the real basis of legitimate decision making in the prevailing emergency.

Why would any one need to make such a prediction? whether or not the building did collapse is irrelevant. The emergency decisions should be and were taken on the proper basis of managing emergency response risk - including the FACT that steel framed buildings are vulnerable to fires - esp unfought fires with zero sprinkler system.

You are determined to put the arguments on wrong order to suit your dishonest agenda. So there is no point me explaining - which I could for any honest reasonable member. I'm experienced and trained in the AU Emergency Management arrangements at National, State, district and local level.

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.

Hogwash:
1) It is not my scenario under discussion - the topic is a decision made in NY on 9/11 2001. So stop the evasion.
2) The engineer under discussion assessed a movement of part of the building. That detected movement added some evidence to the weighting of the Commander's decision to withdraw. Even you should not be prepared to lie that "a bulge" is "LESS significant than no bulge". So the observed FACT added weight. Nothing more. Nothing more was needed.
3) No point me responding to the stupidity of "blinded by...." In case you haven't realised it it was an emergency involving several very large buildings. Your suggestion that the Commander should ignore the reality....is pathetically silly.
4) I've commented previously on the sickness of truthers who have zero regard for human life. I will never sink to your depth for any reason. Ignoring the human trauma merely as a prop for your false claims is....despicable.
5) "Weird" is appropriate to the psychological issues of truthers - including the disregard for human life which IMO is the sickest aspect of your and others trolling games. If you must troll nonsense why not have the decency to avoid making obvious the contempt you hold towards human suffering?

Now for these bits of "fill in nonsense":

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.

If you ever decide to engage in honest reasoned debate quite a few of us will probably oblige by responding on those bits of derailing lies by implication.

The only "inevitable" collapse I am aware of was the progression process for each of the Twin Towers. And those two - once "initiated" were "inevitable". If you think YOU can show that they were NOT inevitable - go for it. Remember the challenge is for YOU to show "NOT inevitable" so don't go building a strawman.

 

[ozeco41]

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.

Spot on and concise.

 

[ozeco41]

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?

Exactly.

(And I've read MicahJava's stupid goalpost moving evasion.)

 

[Axxman300]

Chief Cruther's statement (WTC7 comes at the end):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

Chief Fellini gets right to it in good detail here:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

Chief Nigro:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF

 

[tfk]

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.

Show me where you were ever a debunker, here or anywhere else.
Show me one of your debunker posts.

 

[tfk]

When and where (besides here) do you want to debate one on one?

You tried to say I was wrong with no basis.

This is not a venue for legitimate debate and you know it. It is a place where piranha like behavior occurs against anyone who dares to question the primary point of view here.

Can you chance going without your supporters and meeting me in a neutral venue, where thoughtful discussion could occur with just one response per day?

Surely if you feel you actually have a good argument you wouldn't fear doing that.

LMAO.

You're so weak minded that you're not capable just ignoring others posts?

I ignore Twoofer ankle-biters all the time. What's wrong with you.

And stop being a maroon.
There is absolutely nothing standing between you making here any argument you might make anywhere else.

Stop with the "my dog ate my homework" crap ... and start simply replying to the technical components of my posts.

Toss in as many "You're a big meanie & nobody likes you" as you want.
I'm perfectly capable of ignoring those comments ...

... when I'm not laughing at them representing the top quality arguments that you can muster, of courser.

 

[MicahJava]

Whether or not the building did collapse is irrelevant.

What?

The emergency decisions should be and were taken on the proper basis of managing emergency response risk - including the FACT that steel framed buildings are vulnerable to fires - esp unfought fires with zero sprinkler system.

Except for the part where I gave evidence that the prediction was made around 11:30 AM, before there was any photographic evidence of fires. If you're trying to shoehorn "unfought fires" an an explanation for the anomalous 11:30 prediction, please explain how the engineer-person could know that the fires would become larger and hotter (giving you the benefit of the doubt that there even were fires at that time). Or are you suggesting that the prediction was correct by pure luck?

The engineer under discussion assessed a movement of part of the building.

What's your evidence that the alleged movement was measured before the engineer made the prediction? What's your evidence that the measurement was observed by said engineer? Any random quote by any firefighter will do.

Even you should not be prepared to lie that "a bulge" is "LESS significant than no bulge". So the observed FACT added weight. Nothing more. Nothing more was needed.

The bulge was observed some time around 2 PM or shortly before. Also, it couldn't have done anything because it was a small insignificant portion of the perimeter deforming from heat.

3) No point me responding to the stupidity of "blinded by...." In case you haven't realised it it was an emergency involving several very large buildings. Your suggestion that the Commander should ignore the reality....is pathetically silly.

What? No, that's what I'm getting at. The engineer made the prediction, his prediction influenced the fire chiefs to declare WTC 7 a lost cause and withdrew. Confirmation bias on the scene and in retrospect allowed the circumstances leading up to WTC 7's collapse to become a quiet memory that only becomes bizarre and suspicious when examined closely.

4) I've commented previously on the sickness of truthers who have zero regard for human life. I will never sink to your depth for any reason. Ignoring the human trauma merely as a prop for your false claims is....despicable.
5) "Weird" is appropriate to the psychological issues of truthers - including the disregard for human life which IMO is the sickest aspect of your and others trolling games. If you must troll nonsense why not have the decency to avoid making obvious the contempt you hold towards human suffering?

Put the card back in to the deck. What would you know about me?

The only "inevitable" collapse I am aware of was the progression process for each of the Twin Towers. And those two - once "initiated" were "inevitable". If you think YOU can show that they were NOT inevitable - go for it. Remember the challenge is for YOU to show "NOT inevitable" so don't go building a strawman.

No skyscraper except for the alleged case of the WTC has totally collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition. The people on the scene were lead into expecting WTC 7 to completely collapse in a manner similar to the Twin Towers. So certain, that it was reported on the news to have happened a few times before it did happen.

 

[MicahJava]

Show me where you were ever a debunker, here or anywhere else.
Show me one of your debunker posts.

I don't feel like going through my old internet posts, but to this day I still try my best to debunk Pentagon stuff or other falsehoods that I come across.

 

[MicahJava]

Chief Cruther's statement (WTC7 comes at the end):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

Chief Fellini gets right to it in good detail here:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

Chief Nigro:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF

All three are telling vague recollections. It would definitely appear that the engineer-type person played a bigger bole in the decision to abandon WTC 7 than the story is usually remembered.

"Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse. The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should no lose anyone else trying to save it. Rich, a few other people and I went inside to the stairwells and started yelling up "Drop everything and get out!" It didn't collapse until much later in the afternoon, but we felt it was better to get everybody out."

Firefighter Michael Currid, September 11: An Oral History by Dean Murphy

 

[GlennB]

It has already been pointed out that almost totally silent demolition fittings do exist.

I must have missed that, and scanning recent pages isn't helping. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point out that part of the discussion or maybe provide a link.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't feel like going through my old internet posts,

Then, lacking evidence, your claim is rejected.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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?

Nothing there talks about charging sprinklers in a high rise building, now you're being disingenuous.

World trade 6 at 8 stories tall was no freaking high rise building like the 47 story tall building 7.

 

[ozeco41]

What?

OK - so we are both agreed that you are either not serious or not competent.

My SOP's for engaging trolls - I operate to a "two posts rule" - if you post idiotic nonsense or other forms of debating trickery I allow you two posts to make sensible attempted reasoned argument. Note "attempted" - since you either cannot make reasoned arguments or you are out of practice. The two opportunities is a reasonable margin for you to get your act together.

You have one post left to show that you are serious.

So let me simply identify each of your debating tricks:

Except for the part where I gave evidence that the prediction was made around 11:30 AM,<< Irrelevant - Not the issue I raised and you quoted. Evasion. before there was any photographic evidence of fires. <<Irrelevant - the emergency management decisions were made in real time on 9/11 NOT by any silly and dishonest truther (or troll) 15 years later. If you're trying to shoehorn "unfought fires" an an explanation for the anomalous 11:30 prediction,<< I'm not. My Statements/arguments were and still are clear and explicit. Stop intruding evasive straw men. please explain how the engineer-person could know that the fires would become larger and hotter << Stop changing the topic to your stupid and unsupported argument EITHER address what I said of forget my offer of discussion. I will not play your games. (giving you the benefit of the doubt that there even were fires at that time). << You need to get several grades better at engineering forensics AND clearly reasoned argument BEFORE you try patronising me. Lift your game or give up. Or are you suggesting that the prediction was correct by pure luck? << Stop the nonsense. I was explicit - the decision was made on sound emergency management principles. AND whether the building collapsed or not is irrelevant. Deal with that. AND BTW the basis WAS NOT on a "prediction" - also a factor I have explained clearly.

What's your evidence that the alleged movement was measured before the engineer made the prediction? What's your evidence that the measurement was observed by said engineer? Any random quote by any firefighter will do.

You are pretending (and failing) to address my reasoned explanation. No way am I going to chase your nonsense down your rabbit burrows of evasion. This post your last chance - get serious - I wont bother explaining where your lies and other tricks are - I will simply withdraw and leave it to others to do the "troll feeding".

The bulge was observed some time around 2 PM or shortly before. Also, it couldn't have done anything because it was a small insignificant portion of the perimeter deforming from heat.

Two point of nonsense you make:
1) The bulge EITHER adds to the evidence to withdraw from fire-fighting OR it adds nothing. It NEVER subtracts so your continuing evasive nonsense is pointless. You really should read, comprehend and address the points I have made.
2) Even if you were on the spot and competent to make the judgement call - it matters not. The bulge was not the main or only basis for the decision.

What? No, that's what I'm getting at. The engineer made the prediction, his prediction influenced the fire chiefs to declare WTC 7 a lost cause and withdrew. Confirmation bias on the scene and in retrospect allowed the circumstances leading up to WTC 7's collapse to become a quiet memory that only becomes bizarre and suspicious when examined closely.

More asinine evasive stupidity. I've run out of patience.

Get serious or continue trolling nonsense.

Put the card back in to the deck. What would you know about me?

I'm a former forum senior moderator. I am absolutely clear on the rule "attack the argument - not the person making it". Your call if the cap fits you - not mine. BUT the comments I made about sick psychology are relevant to the assertions you made. If you don't believe your own comments - say so and stop making them. Just as I suggested..

No skyscraper except for the alleged case of the WTC has totally collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition. <<Irrelevant lie by innuendo as I am sure you must know. The fact is not in contention. The people on the scene were lead into expecting WTC 7 to completely collapse in a manner similar to the Twin Towers. << "led" is what you meant but - so what even if it is true - what would a reasonable emergency commander decide in the scenario. Remember he was not a dishonest truther trying to fabricate arguments 15 years after the event. So certain, that it was reported on the news to have happened a few times before it did happen. << also irrelevant. Are you aware that all the UK news media will have already written the obituaries for HM Queen Elizabeth? And ditto the US media for the current president, former presidents and probably the candidates bidding to replace him? Get real.

Last chance for serious discussion MicahJavah.

Ball in your court to drop the idiotic nonsense and get serious.

 

[GlennB]

Nothing there talks about charging sprinklers in a high rise building, now you're being disingenuous.

World trade 6 at 8 stories tall was no freaking high rise building like the 47 story tall building 7.

Exactly, to both points.

MJ is either flailing around hopelessly in a sea of cognitive dissonance or actively aiming to provoke (trolling, in my definition of the word).

Meanwhile he's been corrected on matters of fact several times and just abandoned those lines of discussion.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except for the part where I gave evidence that the prediction was made around 11:30 AM, before there was any photographic evidence of fires.

Just highlighting this, as it's a classic example of the kind of broken thinking that seems endemic in truthers. Whether or not there was photographic evidence of fires would have been completely irrelevant to the firefighters on the scene, who were able to see for themselves whether or not there were fires, and who knew perfectly well that their lives depended on being able to assess the severity of those fires and their possible effects on the building.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Exactly, to both points.

MJ is either flailing around hopelessly in a sea of cognitive dissonance or actively aiming to provoke (trolling, in my definition of the word).

Meanwhile he's been corrected on matters of fact several times and just abandoned those lines of discussion.

He probably hasn't seen this from the day in question.Firefighter predicts WTC 7 collapse: http://youtu.be/XImQ6a-VrnA

 

[ozeco41]

As CrazyChainsaw has stated - getting water up those tall buildings is a significant logistic challenge.

I'm not familiar with NYC design water pressure or what high rise pumping gear the fire fighters have as standard kit.

BUT in an AU capital city it would be usual to find water systems at City Centre designed for 100ft head - about 44psi if someone cares to do the sums. (We traditionally design suburban supplies for 22psi - 50ft head but that is minimum - at the top of the hills.) (And the non engineers may not realise that simple fact - it is purely height driven.)

It would require relay pumping to get to the heights of those buildings.

All of it manhandled up stairs???? Pumps, fuel, hoses???

And for what legitimate purpose? Doing it to forestall dishonest truthers 15 years later is not legitimate by my measures. The emergency service and their managers did IMO a fantastic job to even stay with it. And I find the truthers' behaviour to disregard and ignore the human realities of such a traumatic event....callous in the extreme. (Actually I'm lost for words to express my disgust.)

 

[ozeco41]

Just highlighting this, as it's a classic example of the kind of broken thinking that seems endemic in truthers. Whether or not there was photographic evidence of fires would have been completely irrelevant to the firefighters on the scene, who were able to see for themselves whether or not there were fires, and who knew perfectly well that their lives depended on being able to assess the severity of those fires and their possible effects on the building.

Dave

The demeaning of the human dimension is endemic with truthers. We all know that they fail at understanding the technical/physical context. But the zero recognition of the human asects is probably beyond expressions of contempt.

 

[JSanderO]

As CrazyChainsaw has stated - getting water up those tall buildings is a significant logistic challenge.

I'm not familiar with NYC design water pressure or what high rise pumping gear the fire fighters have as standard kit.

BUT in an AU capital city it would be usual to find water systems at City Centre designed for 100ft head - about 44psi if someone cares to do the sums. (We traditionally design suburban supplies for 22psi - 50ft head but that is minimum - at the top of the hills.) (And the non engineers may not realise that simple fact - it is purely height driven.)

It would require relay pumping to get to the heights of those buildings.

All of it manhandled up stairs???? Pumps, fuel, hoses???

And for what legitimate purpose? Doing it to forestall dishonest truthers 15 years later is not legitimate by my measures. The emergency service and their managers did IMO a fantastic job to even stay with it. And I find the truthers' behaviour to disregard and ignore the human realities of such a traumatic event....callous in the extreme. (Actually I'm lost for words to express my disgust.)

This is why even having water at street level made getting it up a few hundred feet to fight the fires well nigh to impossible. The only chance would have been to energize the existing lift pumps which fed the sprinkler tanks on the upper floors...Those tanks had been emptied from use or breach in the piping... and did not extinguish the fires.... which raged on. The lift pumps likely were not working.

There was a cascading failing of the fire protection system as well!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

LMAO.

You're so weak minded that you're not capable just ignoring others posts?

I ignore Twoofer ankle-biters all the time. What's wrong with you.

And stop being a maroon.
There is absolutely nothing standing between you making here any argument you might make anywhere else.

Stop with the "my dog ate my homework" crap ... and start simply replying to the technical components of my posts.

Toss in as many "You're a big meanie & nobody likes you" as you want.
I'm perfectly capable of ignoring those comments ...

... when I'm not laughing at them representing the top quality arguments that you can muster, of courser.

Tony needs to start and fund his own investigation he can start by leaving A/E911/ idiots, and actually studying engineering this time. Then maybe he will be able to engage in reasonable
Debate with informed Laymen.