Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Gravy]

Gravy,

I just caught your post.

And I just caught yours.

Please refrain from demanding anything from me. It just creates an inner resistance within me that is likely to even further delay my response.

Don't come to a website for critical thinkers, repeatedly make wild claims, ignore the evidence that's put before you, and not expect to be called out. We're going to call you on your b.s. every time. The burden of proof of your claims is on you. Remember that at all times.

You'll have to wait for my WTC 7 review of your piece. I will highlight some of the data you left out of it from the same documents you used.

I look forward to it. I'm very curious to see what expert eyewitnesses you'll be presenting who contradict all those I presented.

Can you quit using firefighters to hide behind?

In what way have I hidden behind firefighters, Russell? (See, I'm asking you to back up your claim. That's what we do here. Provide your evidence or retract it.

You know nothing of the profession and it looks silly.

Since I've repeatedly shown you to be wrong in your assumptions about what firefighters did at the WTC on 9/11, I'd say it's silly of you to make claims without first having read the source material, as I have done.

Have you interviewed any of them personally?

Why would I want to bother them? I have no reason to doubt their accounts. You're the one who doesn't believe them, and you're the one who should have interviewed them. Why haven't you?

Does it make me seem less important when you emphasise my past occupation?

No, it makes you seem more disrespecful, and it makes me wonder what kind of person would disparage the FDNY's actions on 9/11 in order to further a political agenda.

Sometimes it's a bummer for me since I moved on due to an injury.

Was it a brain injury? If not, your behavior here is inexplicable to me.

 

[CurtC]

Actually there are two of each recorded.

Two eyewitnesses that report explosions and two actual recordings of explosions as well.

EXPLOSIONS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2vFX8WKkEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

TESTIMONY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To3cX9Mudw (5:10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8 (1:22)

How dishonest of you. You were asked for any evidence of bombs. You reply with evidence of explosions. It's been explained to you multiple times that explosions are quite normal in building fires, without explosives.

Russell, I really was looking forward to coming over here, because I thought you would be different from the kooks we've had. But stuff like this tells me that you're just like them.

 

[beachnut]

Russell Pickering
"We should focus on the irrefutable evidence like the demolition of WTC7, the free-fall speed of the towers, Norad, PNAC etc., in other words, things that are WELL documented"

 

[Gravy]

Without diving into the vitriol, can someone please tell me whether Russell has answered either of my questions yet? (I might add, even TruthSeeker1234 thinks that first question is excellent -- I'm not just trolling.)

No, he hasn't answered either question. I asked him the first many times in another thread, and he refused to answer. The least he could do is explain why he thinks it's not a valid question that must be answered.

Well, then, has he presented any new evidence?

Evidence that WTC 7 did not have severe damage and fires, or that the experts on the scene were conflicted about its disposition? Zero.

Failing that, does this mean he still rejects the theory that WTC 7 fell over from damage and fire, despite eyewitness accounts, video refuting his assertions, and the statements of dozens of firefighters to the contrary, and based on no evidence of his own?

Figures. Guess I'll be leaving again, then.

Of course. In the Bizarro World, the claimant bears no burden of proof.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Touché.

But it doesn't change the fact that 7 was ALSO hit by WTC1 as it came down.

also doesnt change the fact that low, squat buildings like WTC5 and 6 arent really comparable to high rises like WTC7

WTC3 was 22 stories with a very narrow footprint, also different from 5 and 6, and WTC3 also suffered a total collapse on 9/11

 

[Trigood]

Did you do that to protect the lurkers? So they don't see the BS you try and pull by cherry picking the articles you write?

Such a cowardly appeal, to "lurkers." The one group who cannot, by definition, contradict you.

 

[Kent1]

I thought I would post this batch of information from WTC7
Since this information is often not read, especially by those who strongly believe in CD.
Each one of these papers has important information.

FEMA
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

Studies regarding metal here
FEMA
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Studies regarding metal outside of NIST and FEMA
http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/FOIA/ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf (Very little information, however may show WTC7 steel)
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

 

[Trigood]

Just so you know, you are the only respectable person here and I appreciate your documentation!

No, he's merely willing to be intellectually honest in answering your cherry-picked questions, the answers to which do not prove what you say they do.

By the way, did you read the Sunder testimony he linked to? I don't think you'll get too much comfort there.

You should help Gravy.

No, he should help you, to be more honest. You are someone who cannot back off from your conclusion (WTC7 was demolitioned with bombs) one scintilla, no matter the massive array of evidence arrayed against it.

 

[Trigood]

OK - so the answer is you can't show me an official report that definitively attributes the collapse of WTC 7 to non fire structural damage.

Why are you disallowing fire-induced structural damage as having a possible role to play in the collapse of building 7?

Is it because you are contending that fire cannot create structural damage to steel members?

If so, why?

 

[Belz...]

I think it's because if fire COULD destroy WTC7, it would remove the need for a conspiracy.

 

[Trigood]

If you do go back there, point out that the sun is low in the southwest. It is late in the afternoon. As we know from all the photos and videos, at that time of day the smoke from the site was small compared to the smoke from WTC 7.

Good points, Gravy. However, I doubt I'll go back there, much (maybe just to rib 'em a few times here and there).

Being there was like being in a crowd of BS1+2=4's and JessicaWabbits (one poster, I think, may actually have been her), bowing and scraping before a coupla Russell Cherry-Pickings. Not a warm-and-fuzzy place for people with minimal research skills and intelligence.

For example, the troofer who was arging that idiotic debris cloud theory, would dismiss your assertions above. He actually used the sun position in that picture to argue it was taken in the morning. I'm not an expert in measuring sun position from light and shadows in pictures, but it would appear from that photo that the west side of building 7 is well lit, which would exclude a morning shot.

And as for other pix and videos showing that the smoke off the pile had died down by late afternoon, he would have probably called those into question somehow as well. He actually implied that, after the collapses of the towers, there was never a view of blue sky again from lower Manhattan for the remainder of that day, and that is why that picture had to have been taken prior to collapse of the south tower and spread of associated debris cloud (never mind that that picture shows massive debris damage to nearby buildings, which he claimed somehow "jumped ahead" of the debris cloud).

You see why being there gave me massive headaches and a feeling of being down the rabbit hole with Alice in Wonderland.

(By the way, this troofer was mostly pretty polite, except when he called me a government shill - and thereby covering up the murder of thousands of my fellow Americans. OK, I take that back. I guess that wasn't very polite. )

The videos show this best. They are undeniable.

This same troofer ignored the burning building 7 videos (which I posted) as well. I agree they are incontrovertible, as are the fireman testimonies, that building 7 was fully involved. I had another poster there argue that there was plenty of water for fighting fires and that no water mains failed that day, contra many firemen's testimonies. When I pointed that out, he said something to the effect of "I don't believe there was any water main breakage."

You see, it all comes down to belief with these troofers.

I'm glad I fought the good fight there for a while, but I got tired. Very tired.

I'm happy to be here now, where the majority are sane and thoughtful. *Huges and kisses* all around.

 

[Moving On]

UPDATE:

No photos, video or official reports that document 47 stories of fire involvement.

 

[Trigood]

Note: The below Russell post is in response to the following request by Wildcat:

And BTW, where is the video and pics of bombs going off? Where is the eyewitness reports of bombs?

Actually there are two of each recorded.

First, let's note disproportion: Even if 2 of each can be demonstrated (which we will show below that they can't), that pales in comparison to the 200 eyewitness statements Gravy has assembled and the various pix we have provided Russell that show damage and fires.

Two eyewitnesses that report explosions and two actual recordings of explosions as well.

Try to stay current on the topic please - it expedites the conversation.

EXPLOSIONS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2vFX8WKkEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

TESTIMONY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To3cX9Mudw (5:10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8 (1:22)

Imagine the above four youtubes numbered and I'll response individually:

(Video 1) Is this supposed to demonstrate audio of explosions? I hear none, only the general hubbub of the day and the roar of the building coming down.

If it's posted to demonstrate testimony of explosions, it's pretty lame. All that's said is:

"Keep your eye on that building, it's about to come down." Pretty convincing testimony that the first responders either (a) knew a compromised building when they saw it, or (b) were in on a deep dark conspiracy to control demolition a building in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our soil. I'd say, um, which is more likely? Hmmm.... I guess I'll say (a).

"The building's about to blow up, move it back." Same arguments as above, except for the phrase "blow up," which clearly Russell has taken to mean "be demolitioned." Well, not necessarily. The primary definition of "blow up" is "explode," yes, but the building actually did explode, in a sense, did it not? That is, it fell to the ground, pushing a lot of debris outward. I'd say the building could explode without explosives, eh?

(Video 2) Pretty lame. No idea where/when this video was taken. It's also been debunked on this forum (someone have the link? sorry I can't find it at the moment).

Also, the final criticism of that video: Explosion != Explosives. How many times to we have to say that before you'll learn it?

Actually explosives have a very distinctive sound to them. Have you or has anyone exposed that audio to an actual demolitions expert and asked him/her whether it corresponds to explosives? If not, why not? You afraid of the answer?

Even if you do that, proof of where/when that video took place will be required.

(Video 3) Our old friend Craig Bartmer. He is not an expert in demolitions, nor a fireman. He is also a sick man with an axe to grind. Nope, no good reason we should question him.... not at all.... And you note, he won't come right out and say the building was demolitioned. He just says "something wrong" or something to that effect. Real strong testimony there, Russell.

(Video 4) I get no sound on this video. However, from reading the text to the side, we have this at 1:22:

@1:22 - Reporter: "I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl."

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

Being that this guy is a medical student, he was clearly not someone who a priori had an expert knowledge of building collapses. One would assume he would not know a demolition charge sound if he heard it, yet you're willing to take his "clap of thunder" remark as proof. Note he also does not even claim it was a demolition charge that he heard. Shows your standard of proof Russell - pretty low.

Note that he also does mention the fires on the lower floors -- plural -- which would support the theory of fire damage to lower steel members that is part of NIST's working model.

Yes, he does portray the collapse as a two-part process -- which of course feeds your fantasy of a controlled demolition. In reality, of course, a building collapse does not have to proceed by any set agenda of immediate, simultaneous failure that you posit, Russell. The two phases could be the result of many things. Perhaps one part of the building failed first, before the entire building collapsed. Actually, there's evidence this is exactly what happened: the east penthouse, followed by the west penthouse, followed by the entire building. I'm glad to see that Mr. Medical Student's account meshes with the actual evidence from videos and other sources. Bravo, but not evidence of planted explosives.

For that, you need experts in controlled demolition, or at least people somewhat familiar with the sound of controlled demolition, saying they heard sounds that corresponded to explosive charges going off in building 7. Do you have such evidence, Russell?

If not, I suggest you go back and review Gravy's document. You might actually learn something.

And no, you haven't yet answered Wildcat's questions above.

 

[Trigood]

UPDATE:

No photos, video or official reports [that I can see with my magic, X-ray glasses] that document 47 stories of fire involvement.

But plenty of photos, videos and official reports (and personal testimonies) that document many floors of fire involvement.

Especially on the lower floors, which is probably where the structure failed.

But you can't see them thru your magic 9/11 troof glasses, I guess.

By the way, Sherlock, no one ever said that all 47 stories had to be involved in fire, for there not to be controlled demolition. Post where someone said that.

Straw man. Your best friend, buddy.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

UPDATE:

No photos, video or official reports that document 47 stories of fire involvement.

Straw man

This fallacy takes its name from the image of someone stuffing some clothes with straw and then beating seven bells out of the resultant opponent, supposing thereby that they have somehow won a fight. The fallacy occurs when an argument is countered by taking a weaker form of it and showing where it fails, assuming that this means the original argument has also been defeated.

Take an example:

You say we should invest more in public health services, but taking everyone's money off them and deciding what they should spend it on for them is nothing less than totalitarianism.
We could render this as a syllogism as follows:

P1: Investing more in public services is equivalent to taking everyone's money and deciding how it should be spent for them;
P2: This is equivalent to totalitarianism;
P3: Totalitarianism has been refuted previously;
C: Therefore, the idea of investing more in public services is refuted.
Even if we accept P2 and P3, which we needn't, the important point is that P1 is false and does not accurately describe what was originally claimed. By making two different ideas equivalent the argument becomes easier to address but, since the refutation deals with one idea and the argument with another, nothing is actually accomplished. The argument is mischaracterized or misrepresented in order to make it easier to tackle, but by doing so it isn't tackled at all.

Another example could be this:

You advocate the death penalty but I doubt that anyone will accept televised hanging of people on meat hooks.
Here the idea of what the death penalty involves is mischaracterized (we would hope) by supposing that anyone advocating it is actually asking that people be publicly hung on meat hooks. Since (again, we would hope) this measure would not be accepted, the argument is considered defeated. A simplistic and deliberately repugnant version of the death penalty is used to discredit the idea when the person suggesting it probably said nothing of the sort; as a result, the refutation is unsuccessful.

This fallacy is unfortunately very common and some politicians tend to be adept at its use. It can be used in humour but perhaps the most important lesson to learn from it is not to unwittingly or otherwise make straw men of other people's ideas ourselves.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man

 

[Housefly]

UPDATE:

No photos, video or official reports that document 47 stories of fire involvement.

And also no evidence to indicate that the fires in WTC 7 could not possibly have been serious enough to cause it to collapse.

 

[Arus808]

No honest experienced firefighter would ever suggest that the absence of visible flames from a particular vantage point on the outside of a building is in any way dispositive of the state of fire within the building.

that was the thing that I didn't understand about Russell's deman about seeing any pics with "substantial" fires.

Speaking with my fire Fighter friend, that's one of the first things they teach you in the academy. When entering a building that is on fire, just because YOU dont see fire or smoke, you always take precaution. Backdraft anyone?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Question for Russell

Hey, when were you with Seattle Fire, and out of where? Were you a medic?

 

[beachnut]

I am aware of the various posts here.

I tried intelligent kind discussion, but now I am turning down my IQ and ignoring idiocy!

Did have you IQ up or down when you said;

"We should focus on the irrefutable evidence like the demolition of WTC7, the free-fall speed of the towers, Norad, PNAC etc., in other words, things that are WELL documented"

Is a high IQ conducive to finding all this well documented stuff you call evidence?

So after seeing your web site and the level of research you reveal on the WTC7 do you think we should turn up or down our IQs? And why? Yet as a fireman you could talk to a bunch of points which are interesting and would give incite to non-fire people on fire in buildings.

Is this your well documented evidence on the WTC7, some hearsay statements that you have already presented? Do you have any re-interviewing statements from people for testimony?

Do you have some stuff to prove the toilet paper could not make the steel building fall like the WTC7 fell from fire?

Did they find any of the thousands and thousands of gallons of fuel left over in WTC7? Have you ignored the thousands of gallons of fuel in WTC7? I could not find you reference the tons of fuel in WTC7. Would that make WTC7 unique? And the damage from WTC towers inflicted enough holes to help air get in, was that a unique situation?

I notice the squibs all the CT sites point to on the corner of WTC7 were broken windows. Seems a lot of the building was breached by debris from the towers. Being a fireman what considerations would that bring up as you plan to fight the fire?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I think this makes one thing clear. Our government is attempting to snuff out the toilet paper industry with this top secret covery up "accidental" burning. Think about it! I mean, this is far too HILARIOUS to have happened just by chance!