I found the missing Jolt.

Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Classic Truther fallacy, If MJ was a debunker, he was obviously not a very good one, as he is constantly presenting fallacious ideas as fact.
 
Truth guys simply find everything the officials and media say or report a bold face lie. Their default position is the opposite. It has little to do with "truth" or facts.
 
pgimeno said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can dismiss Tony's work because his support for Cole's intellectual dishonest experiments
Proves his gross incompetency, and that he should not be doing engineering.
Stupid is as stupid does and Cole's experiments are just that too stupid to be of any relevancy to anyone but idiots.
 
JSanderO said:
Truth guys simply find everything the officials and media say or report a bold face lie. Their default position is the opposite. It has little to do with "truth" or facts.
Click to expand...

They appear to show a constant need to be the center of attention, and have no problems with lying and making up Fictional propaganda for pure self promotion.
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, the FDNY was in-on-it then?
A yes or no would suffice.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Verinage demolition hydraulics.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

But why are there photographs that show high-pressure water hoses yet the official story is that it was impossible to get adequate water pressure?
 
MicahJava said:
But why are there photographs that show high-pressure water hoses yet the official story is that it was impossible to get adequate water pressure?
Click to expand...

Not adequate to feed the WTC7 risers as has been explained with actual numbers, as has the fact that WTC6 was only 8 storeys and reachable with hoses.
 
ozeco41 said:
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:

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".

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

Get serious or continue trolling nonsense.
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..




Last chance for serious discussion MicahJavah.

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

I think you are the one performing the mental gymnastics. Your explanation for the engineer's prediction involves both luck and a garbled timeline of the day's events. Combine that with old tired personal attacks and you have you.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Okay, well whatever fires existed at 11:30, they weren't that bad. There's your assessment. Even assuming the engineer's prediction was partially based on existing fires, how would he predict they would appear on more floors and get hot enough to weaken steel?
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, well whatever fires existed at 11:30, they weren't that bad. There's your assessment. Even assuming the engineer's prediction was partially based on existing fires, how would he predict they would appear on more floors and get hot enough to weaken steel?
Click to expand...

Because they weren't being fought? It doesn't take an expert to note that a fire that isn't being fought will get very hot and will spread very quickly, especially in an office environment that has lots of flammable materials lying around.
 
ozeco41 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I never suggested they should "manhandle it upstairs", I was asking why the Siamese fittings weren't an option.
 
MicahJava said:
But why are there photographs that show high-pressure water hoses yet the official story is that it was impossible to get adequate water pressure?
Click to expand...

Adequate for what exactly? You do realize that if several efforts are under way that it would require more than if only one was going on?

You do realize that the focus was search and rescue for the towers, and fire suppression to support that effort AND that this operation was hampered by the fact that the FDNY had lost over 300 of their personnel?

You also do of course know that as far as the FDNY was concerned, WTC7 had no one inside to be concerned about?

To summarize:
Water supply limited mostly to what the fire boat could supply
WTC7 evacuated
Search for possible survivors of the towers (including FDNY personnel) underway.
Multiple structures on fire including WTC 5 and in the rubble (the later of which was the focus of the search and rescue effort)
 
GlennB said:
What the hell does this have to do with WTC1,2 and 7 ???
Click to expand...

You asked what silent demolition fittings exist. If the WTC was a demolition, it is possible that whoever planned it was inspired by Verinage.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Because they weren't being fought? It doesn't take an expert to note that a fire that isn't being fought will get very hot and will spread very quickly, especially in an office environment that has lots of flammable materials lying around.
Click to expand...

That's your explanation for the certain and precise "5 to 6 hours" prediction?
 
jaydeehess said:
Adequate for what exactly? You do realize that if several efforts are under way that it would require more than if only one was going on?

You do realize that the focus was search and rescue for the towers, and fire suppression to support that effort AND that this operation was hampered by the fact that the FDNY had lost over 300 of their personnel?

You also do of course know that as far as the FDNY was concerned, WTC7 had no one inside to be concerned about?

To summarize:
Water supply limited mostly to what the fire boat could supply
WTC7 evacuated
Search for possible survivors of the towers (including FDNY personnel) underway.
Multiple structures on fire including WTC 5 and in the rubble (the later of which was the focus of the search and rescue effort)
Click to expand...

WTC 7 delayed their rescue operations around the collapse zone and also created another dangerous dust cloud (which was also anticipated). Nobody wants that thing collapsing if they can help it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom