I found the missing Jolt.

MicahJava said:
Yeah, for all I know you're playing games. It seems like your claim about knowing the engineer Peter Hayden spoke to is about as credible as Beverly Oliver saying she's Babushka Lady.
Click to expand...

As I said I don't care what you believe. What is, is what was ,was.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
It doesn't mean inevitable just potential, that's what you're having problems with.
Click to expand...

Before anything had collapsed on 911, what potential for collapse do you think the firefighters who went up in the South Tower believed there was?
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Probably Zero, they wouldn't have know about the other steel structures compromised by fire.
Click to expand...

1276852649_chilling-sloth.gif
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1276852649_chilling-sloth.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Wow, all your evidence for 9/11 and OKC in one failed most likely to be removed for exposing the NWO MIB evil doers...

lol, this is 9/11 truth best engineering effort - this is where 9/11 truth faith based followers get their evidence.... http://www.gifbin.com/

You win, you got the top 9/11 Conspiracy Theory evidence ever... winner

Too bad Tony failed to use this evidence for his missing jolt paper, he would have the evidence he left out for the proof the aircraft were a ruse. Wow, you guys win. Here you are in the 9/11CT sub-forum Wowzer.

Your evidence for 9/11 and OKC - http://www.gifbin.com/search/chilling/ - perfect summation.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Before anything had collapsed on 911, what potential for collapse do you think the firefighters who went up in the South Tower believed there was?
Click to expand...
They were possibly anticipating small and localised heat driven collapses blocking stairwells and access paths.

If we forget the polarised dishonesty of truther v debunker arguments the reality is that every professional including fire-fighters was and is well aware of heat effects on steel.

BUT their training and experience probably limited to small scale factory or warehouse fires where sagging roof trusses are routine..

There is no doubt that total global collapse as per Twin Towers 9/11 was unprecedented and near certainly beyond the comprehension of fire-fighters involved.

So your question is prudent "what potential for collapse do you think the fire-fighters who went up in the South Tower believed there was?"

I suggest they would have assessed the potential as "small and localised heat driven collapses - possibly blocking access" I doubt that any would have anticipated total global collapse.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Probably Zero, they wouldn't have know about the other steel structures compromised by fire.
Click to expand...
I partly disagree CC.

Every workshop/seminar/training exercise I've shared with firies they always have their rogues gallery of "worst events they have been at or heard about" And heat driven failing of steel is one on the main themes. (after the Bush Fire; Oil Refinery and LPG "BLEVE" events have been revisited.)

The effects of heat on steel are well known - truther "opinions" to the contrary not withstanding.

The precedent at WTC was extreme high rise buildings AND malicious intervention to start far bigger fires than any design envelope would have allowed for.

Obviously no fire-fighters - anywhere - had experienced those conditions before.

AND I suggest it was also outside the sort of "what if scenario" that is used for tactical exercising of emergency response. I could be wrong on that - but 15 years on and it hasn't "leaked" so I'll bet I'm right. (Sure tactical exercising fire fighting "normal" fires in high rises would be common with NYC as with any other city with lots of high rise....even tho the NY definition of "high" is more extreme than the AU version.)
 
ozeco41 said:
I partly disagree CC.

Every workshop/seminar/training exercise I've shared with firies they always have their rogues gallery of "worst events they have been at or heard about" And heat driven failing of steel is one on the main themes. (after the Bush Fire; Oil Refinery and LPG "BLEVE" events have been revisited.)

The effects of heat on steel are well known - truther "opinions" to the contrary not withstanding.

The precedent at WTC was extreme high rise buildings AND malicious intervention to start far bigger fires than any design envelope would have allowed for.

Obviously no fire-fighters - anywhere - had experienced those conditions before.

AND I suggest it was also outside the sort of "what if scenario" that is used for tactical exercising of emergency response. I could be wrong on that - but 15 years on and it hasn't "leaked" so I'll bet I'm right. (Sure tactical exercising fire fighting "normal" fires in high rises would be common with NYC as with any other city with lots of high rise....even tho the NY definition of "high" is more extreme than the AU version.)
Click to expand...

I was spacifically referring to global collapse of insulated steel high rise, the only steel structure's that had suffered such collapses before were off shore oil well rigs. And a few large land rigs. Possibly some navy ships as well. All of which were uninsulated steel.
No one questions why the oil well rigs failed because of the oil fires, which burn no hotter than jet fuel.
Truthers can't even think about those they are not allowed too.
 
MicahJava said:
Do you have a pre-9/11 source stating that this means inevitable collapse?
Click to expand...

Why is it the answer to EVERY question you pose results in another question? Have you EVER said the words "OK" and "Thank you" in succession, or any combination of words that equal that? Try it.

"Ok, thanks!"
"I didn't know that. Cool"
"Wow - I appreciate that"

They're not very hard to string together.
 
NoahFence said:
Why is it the answer to EVERY question you pose results in another question? Have you EVER said the words "OK" and "Thank you" in succession, or any combination of words that equal that? Try it.

"Ok, thanks!"
"I didn't know that. Cool"
"Wow - I appreciate that"

They're not very hard to string together.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is in the video Of the firefighter I posted,, the fire fighter says you can visually see building 7 leaning, and he dismissed it without evidence to counter the claim.
That's pure truther.
 
DGM said:
I wonder what the actual topic of the debate will be. If it follows from this thread, will Tony be defending his "missing jolt" paper?
Click to expand...
Yes - the choice of topic could be interesting. Also the implicit challenge for both parties to engage in reasoned and valid argument of the technical topic.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The funny thing is in the video Of the firefighter I posted,, the fire fighter says you can visually see building 7 leaning, and he dismissed it without evidence to counter the claim.
That's pure truther.
Click to expand...

The firefighter claimed that you can see the building leaning (with the naked eye). Tfk posted a screenshot of something he says might be leaning, but I'm looking at all the other WTC 7 videos and I don't see anything matching his screenshot.
 
MicahJava said:
The firefighter claimed that you can see the building leaning (with the naked eye). Tfk posted a screenshot of something he says might be leaning, but I'm looking at all the other WTC 7 videos and I don't see anything matching his screenshot.
Click to expand...

"Something he says might be leaning"

There's a frickin LINE on WTC 7. That's the "something". And it IS leaning, not "Might".

You have been corrected. You asked for evidence of it leaning. You now are in possession of first-hand witness accounts AND physical evidence in the form of a photograph.

Say thank you and MOVE ON.

The building was leaning. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom