Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

beachnut said:
Months are quickly, hate to work with your time factor!

You must not be very well read on what really happen and how the steel was investigated, you should look it up before you believe a known CT guy on his video as he is feed topics from his handler.
Click to expand...
It was spirited off right-quick to Fresh Kills in the far-off and distant land of Staten Island.
 
jessicarabbit said:
They might have found evidence of explosives if they had all the steel to look at. The guy in the video says it was shipped off very quickly without analysis.
Click to expand...
Jessica, this report will give you an idea of how the steel was handled. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%2520STUDY%25208-06%2520w%2520clarif%2520as%2520of%25209-8-06%2520.pdf&e=9797

The paper on WTC 7 that's linked in my signature provides many accounts of the building's condition. I hope you will read them.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
Its strange that the firemen predicted the collapse but even 5 years later we have no final report on how it happened
Click to expand...


Some murder cases take decades to solve. I think 5 years for a building collapse is pretty good. Dont be so short sighted. Do you think they solve crime in 2 hours like a movie?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I think its an unfair question but I will try. I would expect a messy partial collapse not the free fall of wtc7 that we saw. I would expect loud noises.
Click to expand...

Have you read the preliminary report from NIST? Do you have a problem with the proposed (and very, very likely) mechanism? Do you think it should have resulted in what you mention above?
 
Hawk one said:
When you understand those 7 simple, yet incredibly important points, come back and see if you can present any actual evidence for explosives in WTC7.
Click to expand...

The evidence was destroyed.

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.


http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jessicarabbit said:
I think its an unfair question but I will try. I would expect a messy partial collapse not the free fall of wtc7 that we saw. I would expect loud noises. I would expect every piece of steel to be kept and scrutinised
Click to expand...

after an all day fire, and steel only frame building can fail.

Show me the video where you are able to see more that the top fall

are you ignoring the other reports about how it did not look like a CD besides the facts the noise of CD is not there.

What evidence did you garner from the video of this poor guy or else where to support a free fall, I found 13 seconds as the collaspe time and could not see the final fall due to buildings.
 
Hawk one said:
What ridicule?

I was asking a serious question, after stating a serious fact. But if you want it spoonfed, here it is:

1: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.
2: When there is a fire in a big building, lots of stuff found in there will go out with a bang. Soda boxes, spray cans, and plenty of other things.
3: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.
4: To find actual evidence for explosives put in a building, you need to produce remnant of the explosives. If there aren't any evidence of this, then the by far most likely cause is because there weren't any explosives.
5: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives?
6: There haven't been found any evidence of actual explosives from the ruins.
7: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.

When you understand those 7 simple, yet incredibly important points, come back and see if you can present any actual evidence for explosives in WTC7.
Click to expand...

hahaha I feel your pain....I cant fathom why this is so hard to understand
 
Gravy said:
Repeating, because I think it bears repeating:

Perhaps one of our new CT friends would care to describe, in as much detail as possible, what they would to expect to see and hear when a skyscraper collapses. I've been asking that question for months, and no one has stepped up to the plate to answer it.

Who wants to go first? Usual? Russell? Jessica?
Click to expand...

We have no idea. It happened for the first time three times in one day, straight down, within a couple of blocks of each other.
 
Russell, what happened to your sweet objectivity?

What happened to "we'll have to wait for the final report"?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I think its an unfair question but I will try. I would expect a messy partial collapse not the free fall of wtc7 that we saw. I would expect loud noises. I would expect every piece of steel to be kept and scrutinised
Click to expand...

1) It's not an unfair question. If you say there was something unexpected about what was seen and heard when the buildings collapsed, you must have an idea of what to expect. Correct?

2) Based on what we know from the reports that have been issues so far, why would you expect a partial collapse? What, specifically do you disagree with in those reports?

3) Why should every piece of steel be kept, and if it were kept, how long do you think it would take for experts to scrutinize each piece?
 
Russell Pickering said:
We have no idea. It happened for the first time three times in one day, straight down, within a couple of blocks of each other.
Click to expand...

Well golly. Its like there was some event that resulted in building destruction.

You know, I hear that once bunch of buildings real close to each other caught fire and were destroyed all in the same night. The official fairy tale for that 1944 conspiracy was 'allied bombing'. Pah!
 
Gravy said:
As you know, the fires didn't spread heavily until the afternoon. Why were you unable to answer your own question?
Click to expand...

I can answer the question

ESPECIALLY in light of the day, if any commander thought there was any possibility of structural collapse from the physical damage they would NOT risk another firefighter's life for an unoccupied building in my opinion.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I think its an unfair question but I will try. I would expect a messy partial collapse not the free fall of wtc7 that we saw. I would expect loud noises. I would expect every piece of steel to be kept and scrutinised
Click to expand...

Fire burned all day, out of control, extra fuel available in the building to run generators,

Look it up, the CT say the Madrid building did not fall in a fire. It had no extra fuel like the WTC had to run generators, yet the steel frame sections fell after a few hours of fire. So why would the steel frame WTC7, with damage to it from the fall of WTC1/2, and a big fire burning all day, why is it impossible to fall when the fire was not fought. Why did firemen say it was going to fall? Do firemen always fear that a building burning out of control can fail and fall on them? Anyone?

Show me the video where you are able to see more that the top fall, and I can show you more than a 6 second free fall! How do you know the interior did not fail first, this building was very unique, and ideas on it?

are you ignoring the other reports about how it did not look like a CD, besides the facts the noise of CD is not there.

What evidence did you garner from the video of this poor guy or else where to support a free fall, I found 13 seconds as the collapse time and could not see the final fall due to buildings.??
 
I will read them. I am willing to look at all evidence. I did see the article in the fire engineering magazine. T hey did a call to action to try to stop all the steel going.
 
I will edit it if it is determined to be in violation of the rules given contemporary examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom