Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

beachnut said:
must be so

a real firefighter would know, fires not fought can lead to collapse of the structure!

examples must be in the thousands
Click to expand...

I see you guys have resorted to personal attacks in the form of unfounded lies that can be definitively disproved. I already displayed the documentation on being a firefighter.

Here are some actual statistics for you (done prior to Madrid which did not suffer total collapse and was not primarily steel. Please don't compare Madrid fire involvement which was fully involved with WTC 7.):

table1.jpg


table2.jpg


table3.jpg


I have taken the time to highlight a couple for you. You do the math. Of the 3 purely steel frame construction buildings that had TOTAL collapse every one of them was at WTC - WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7. All the buildings where the appearance of explosives was related to us by over 40 firefighters.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

Probably just another 9/11 "coincidence".

Please read these reports for the actual details. Try and find another steel frame building over 20 floors made purely of structural steel that suffered total collapse. Or for that matter ANY total collapse of ANY building made of steel except at the WTC.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Most Thorough - http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/pubs/NISTGCR02-843.pdf

You can't argue with these scientific studies and comprehensive studies of all significant collapses in history.

Purely steel - Total collapse = 3.

To see the other fires that only caused beams to fall, major damage to floors or significant structural damage, go here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

That will be all until you deal with the science of the drafting of smoke on the leeward side of a building and/or show ANY photo or video of substantial fires in WTC 7.
 
Russell, did you forget that planes hit those two buildings?
 
Russell did you manage to get your hands on the audio files?

Remember I asked you a while ago, it must have slipped your mind. Please allow me to refresh it.

Remember we agreed that the collapse of WTC 7 had been broadcast live to millions of people. The entire area was, as you pointed out surrounded by the media with high quality video and audio recording devices.

Yet nobody seems to remember hearing the very distinctive loud noises as explosive charges went off when WTC 7 was demolished during the live broadcast.

Now I know you are busy trying to bog it all down with link upon link and demand after demand for photographs, yet you seem to wish to ignore perfectly reasonable requests.

So Russell have you got any audio recordings of the highly public demolition of WTC 7?

Yes or no will do for now.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Russell worked for the Seattle Fire Department as he claims, but he was employed there as a paramedic initially, not a firefighter. Presumably, he's not lying when he says he also worked there as a firefighter. However, I don't think he was a very good one, and certainly not a very well educated one. His knowledge of fires and firefighting appears to be pretty poor. On another thread, he didn't even recognize how ridiculous his statement about fire shutters being installed in elevator shafts was. Not a mistake that an experienced or educated firefighter would make. To be fair, he admitted that it was just something he read on a CT site and he just assumed it to be true, but that struck me as a pretty bizarre statement for any experienced or educated firefighter to make.

Edit to add: And, yes, I agree that any experienced firefighter would know that fires can and do cause structural damage, up to and including partial or total collapse. In fact, partial collapses are as common as dirt. Ask any experienced firefighter and you will hear of numerous "close calls" in which partial collapses occurred, threatening the lives and safety of the firefighters in the buildings. No experienced firefighter would claim otherwise. Their very survival depends upon recognizing the danger.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
I believe that Russell worked for the Seattle Fire Department as he claims, but he was employed there as a paramedic initially, not a firefighter. Presumably, he's not lying when he says he also worked there as a firefighter. However, I don't think he was a very good one, and certainly not a very well educated one. His knowledge of fires and firefighting appears to be pretty poor. On another thread, he didn't even recognize how ridiculous his statement about fire shutters being installed in elevator shafts was. Not a mistake that an experienced or educated firefighter would make. To be fair, he admitted that it was just something he read on a CT site and he just assumed it to be true, but that struck me as a pretty bizarre statement for any experienced or educated firefighter to make.

Edit to add: And, yes, I agree that any experienced firefighter would know that fires can and do cause structural damage, up to and including partial or total collapse. In fact, partial collapses are as common as dirt. Ask any experienced firefighter and you will hear of numerous "close calls" in which partial collapses occurred, threatening the lives and safety of the firefighters in the buildings. No experienced firefighter would claim otherwise. Their very survival depends upon recognizing the danger.
Click to expand...

The proper term is fire dampers. ;) I read the CT source article and I believe that it was an honest mistake where they simply confused the elevator shaft with the adjacent fire rated mechanical shaft that is used to route the ductwork. The distribution duct has a damper at the shaft penetration point, thus mainting the fire rating of the shaft.

Also, the proper term for the vents located on the exterior walls of the mechanical room is louvers.

Just trying to contribute something to the forum, however little it may be....:p
 
Crungy said:
The proper term is fire dampers. ;) I read the CT source article and I believe that it was an honest mistake where they simply confused the elevator shaft with the adjacent fire rated mechanical shaft that is used to route the ductwork. The distribution duct has a damper at the shaft penetration point, thus mainting the fire rating of the shaft.

Also, the proper term for the vents located on the exterior walls of the mechanical room is louvers.

Just trying to contribute something to the forum, however little it may be....:p
Click to expand...

I believe that there are both fire dampers and fire shutters. Russell was specific about referring to fire shutters initially - in fact, it was he who raised the term, even though it appears that he didn't know what he was talking about. He later backtracked and admitted that he was only relying upon a CT site and that he had no knowledge of the issue himself. (The site he specified referred to fire dampers, by the way, not fire shutters as Russell did, and someone who used to be a firefighter, he appears remarkably uneducated on the subject). I recall mentioning to him at the time that fire dampers were used in HVAC ductwork, etc., but that I'd never heard of them being used in elevator hoistways, and I believe it was you who offered your expertise in this regard on that thread (thank you).

In any event, there are products marketed as "fire shutters" which are mechanical shutters that look rather like louvered garage doors that close from top to bottom, or like the type of shutters that I used to have at a cottage that I had to shut down every winter before I bought one that is an all year, all weather cottage :)

You may be correct that the CT site that initially reported on fire dampers in the hoistways simply made a mistake in saying that it was elevator shafts rather than mechanical shafts that had fire dampers. Having seen how often and how readily CTers spread lies in this manner, though, I am not convinced at all that it was an innocent mistake. They read what they want to see. Facts and details are unimportant as long as they can claim to have found yet another "smoking gun" that points to "conspiracy".

Moreover, hundreds of other CT sites copied the info without a single one of them noticing or even questioning the error, and thousands upon thousands of CTers have been spouting the same nonsense without any of them noticing or even questioning the error. Including Russell, the firefighter, who should have recognized it immediately.
 
Last edited:
Russell. I'm very disappointed in you.

NO rational person would so cavalierly discount the evidence presented here.

What's up with that? It's almost as if you have an agenda.
 
LashL said:
Moreover, hundreds of other CT sites copied the info without a single one of them noticing or even questioning the error, and thousands upon thousands of CTers have been spouting the same nonsense without any of them noticing or even questioning the error. Including Russell, the firefighter, who should have recognized it immediately.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't realize that particular bit was copied like wildfire. I assumed that Russ' error was an isolated incident. Although, I'm not a fire fighter, this is the sort of basic fire design item that would be thought in a "building life safety 101" class.
 
Crungy said:
Wow, I didn't realize that particular bit was copied like wildfire. I assumed that Russ' error was an isolated incident.
Click to expand...

It was copied by all kinds of tinhatters and reproduced on numerous websites, and spouted repeatedly by tinhatters - Russell is just one of the many who repeated it mindlessly without question even though any firefighter worth his salt who read it should have instantly said, "Huh? That doesn't sound right" and looked at the story more closely and spotted the errors.

Although, I'm not a fire fighter, this is the sort of basic fire design item that would be thought in a "building life safety 101" class.
Click to expand...

You're right about that; it's basic knowledge that one would expect firefighters to know. Certainly, it is FF101 among those who are trained in highrise firefighting. It might not be quite so much common knowledge among volunteer firefighters or among those who work in small towns or villages where there are no buildings higher than a few storeys, but even then, I'd be surprised if the firefighters were wholly unaware of such basic information. (Russell claims to have highrise training, by the way, so this doesn't exempt him from the common knowledge that is to be expected of him.)

I'm not a firefighter either, but my partner is and he was shocked by Russell's post when I reiterated it to him. He couldn't imagine that a firefighter who claimed to have highrise training could be so ignorant of basic fire safety information. He is a captain who, literally, leads other firefighters into burning buildings and he does not suffer fools (or uninformed, uneducated firefighters) gladly. Nor do I, because my partner's life often depends upon not only his own training, knowledge and expertise but also upon the training, knowledge and expertise of his crew. I would not want his life to depend upon someone like Russell who exhibits a clear lack of knowledge or understanding of some pretty basic and routine fire safety information that should have been second nature to him, and who appears to think that unless every stage of a fire is caught on camera or video, it didn't really happen (on a different, unrelated thread). Seriously, the more he posts, the more I begin to doubt that he actually fought fires in a professional capacity. I'm starting to think that his capacity with the Seattle Fire Department was confined to his paramedic role, and did not extend to actual firefighting, even though he may have been a "firefighter" on paper.

In any event, I am grateful that the calibre of firefighters in Toronto is clearly far, far above Seattle's if Russell is any indication of Seattle's standards.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
In any event, I am grateful that the calibre of firefighters in Toronto is clearly far, far above Seattle's if Russell is any indication of Seattle's standards.
Click to expand...

At least they got the rain in Seattle to help them out...
 
Fascinating discussion.

I love watching people talk about something they know nothing about!

Such a simple error extrapolated into a personal attack. That literally is all you guys have.

I am surprised at you LashL. I explained that to you in great detail via email. Then you have to twist and exaggerate it. Sad. Trusting certain people is just a mistake.

Well I haven't done an exact word count - but it is a bunch without any photo or video of significant fire at WTC 7.

You guys received a perfect scientific description of what is happening with the smoke and exact statistics on collapses and nothing is ever enough for you.

P.S. Firefighter by proxy - ordinary construction and wood frame structural collapse are different. That is why the WTC scenario of 3 buildings is the first time it has ever happened in history!!
 
chipmunk stew said:
1) Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

2) So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

3) The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
Click to expand...

Russell Pickering said:
I can't possibly answer what FEMA and NIST have not in over 5 years.
Click to expand...

chipmunk stew said:
I didn't ask you to.

(1) is a yes or no question about your current state of belief.
(2) is asking you how a downgrade in the description of the fire contradicts:
(3) which is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...
:bump4 for Russell.
 
stateofgrace said:
Russell did you manage to get your hands on the audio files?

Remember I asked you a while ago, it must have slipped your mind. Please allow me to refresh it.

Remember we agreed that the collapse of WTC 7 had been broadcast live to millions of people. The entire area was, as you pointed out surrounded by the media with high quality video and audio recording devices.

Yet nobody seems to remember hearing the very distinctive loud noises as explosive charges went off when WTC 7 was demolished during the live broadcast.

Now I know you are busy trying to bog it all down with link upon link and demand after demand for photographs, yet you seem to wish to ignore perfectly reasonable requests.

So Russell have you got any audio recordings of the highly public demolition of WTC 7?

Yes or no will do for now.
Click to expand...

I know it is pointless but I thought I would try again .

ETA Russell it as been pretty much established that all the photographs of WTC 7 that can be offered up have been done so. I think it is reasonable to assume there are no photographs available at this moment in time that meets your criteria.

Now after that is it not reasonable to wish to discuss other evidence, i.e. eye witness’s accounts, audio recordings etc?
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
I was still waiting for pictures to respond to.
Click to expand...
To wait for something that you know is not forthcoming is foolish, to say the least.

I provided you with numerous quotes from the firefighters. Why do you have so little respect for them?

You've really stepped it up this time by denying what you can see with your own eyes described perfectly in a repeatable experiment.

Those tinyurl links aren't working. Is there a way to see them?
Click to expand...

These links? This is the third time I've posted them in this thread, and they work for me and others.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un

http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd

If they're still not working for you, you'll find the videos at 9/11myths.com's WTC 7 section. Or are you simply afraid to watch them, as you're afraid to confront the FDNY's accounts? Like those accounts, the videos show how wrong you are. Or will you "deny what you can see with your own eyes?"

From the accounts I gathered and the NIST report, fires were confirmed as visible on 14 floors in WTC 7.

Is your idea that if you keep digging this hole, you're bound to come out the other side at some point?
 
My browser doesn't understand what .avi's are, so I can't see those movies either. Might it be possible to post the link to the page that loads them?

More to the point, something doesn't understand that they are movies when you get redirected from tinyurl. So a direct full url might work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom