Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Russell,

I am sorry to say your continued misrepresentation of official reports, photographic evidence, and eye-witness testimonies is nothing short of appalling.

May I ask, what is it that motivated you to pretend to be a researcher with a desire to seek the truth? Are you ashamed of what you really are? Do you have to pretend to appear superior and more impartial than other "truthers" because you are ashamed of associating with them?

If this is the case, why not abandon them, become what you are pretending to be, and never have to fear shame again. It's hard to let go of what you believe in favour of reality, but it's not impossible.

-Gumboot
 
Russell, what is causing all this smoke?

wtc101_small.JPG


wtc105_small.JPG
 
Hey, even by off chance Russell is right about the vorticies thing. That still got to be one hell of a fire that burning in the lower floors to create all that smoke.

At any rate you don't need the entire building totaly involved in flame just key support areas.
 
uruk said:
Hey, even by off chance Russell is right about the vorticies thing...
Click to expand...
But in the videos, you can actually see the smoke streaming out of the windows. He's absolutely not right about the vortices thing, and he knows it.

I will grant that the upper floors might not be fully involved in fire. The firemen who see the first 20 floors on fire, and smoke pouring out of all the floors, could possibly have been mistaken that the upper floors were involved as well. It seems to me that it's possible that the smoke pouring out of the upper floor windows could be due to the building being filled with smoke from the lower fires. However, even if this was the case, it still is fully consistent with the standard model, and inconsistent with CD.
 
CurtC said:
But in the videos, you can actually see the smoke streaming out of the windows. He's absolutely not right about the vortices thing, and he knows it.

I will grant that the upper floors might not be fully involved in fire. The firemen who see the first 20 floors on fire, and smoke pouring out of all the floors, could possibly have been mistaken that the upper floors were involved as well. It seems to me that it's possible that the smoke pouring out of the upper floor windows could be due to the building being filled with smoke from the lower fires. However, even if this was the case, it still is fully consistent with the standard model, and inconsistent with CD.
Click to expand...

I know. The science report he quotes even says the smoke would swirl in an area adjacent to the structure. The video shows the smoke eminating from the windows. That's a little fact Russell still hasn't acknowledged.
 
uruk said:
I know. The science report he quotes even says the smoke would swirl in an area adjacent to the structure. The video shows the smoke eminating from the windows. That's a little fact Russell still hasn't acknowledged.
Click to expand...
I still haven't seen any evidence that he's read that report at all, beyond the Web-downloadable abstract. I could find Dr. Huber's papers in our library to show, again, just how big of a liar Russell is... but he seems to be ignoring me. See any ostriches down there in the sand, Russell?

Incidentally, the paper's author has published several articles on WTC collapse-induced air pollution. One imagines he'd have noticed if his work conflicted with the official theory of Sept. 11th.
 
Russell Pickering said:
UPDATE:

No photos, video or official reports that document 47 stories of fire involvement.
Click to expand...
No one here ever made the claim of 47 stories of fire involvement. Dozens of eyewitness testimonies have been presented of "full" involvement.
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
Click to expand...
This fully involved building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?
 
Kent1 said:
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
Click to expand...

I just like to thank you for posting these links . I have read through the majority of them.

They have given me a greater understanding of what is actually being investigated and the absolute enormous effort that is going into it.
 
I've been away for a couple of days, so I'll have to catch up on the posts here, but what caught my eye initially in the first skim of the replies here since I was last on was that Russell says he attended at 30-40 fires over the course of 8 YEARS.

That's less than 5 per year! Huh? What? You call that serious firefighting service? I'll read the posts in more detail later, perhaps tomorrow as I'm still wrapped up in other stuff here, but come on... five or fewer fires per YEAR? No wonder he seems to know so little about firefighting. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
Miss Anthrope said:
Thanks for being so open--I was simply curious because I am connected to KC EMS.
Click to expand...

I worked for Shepard Ambulance for two years and got hired by SFD. I was initially a volunteer over at Bainbridge before that.

I was in the state academy class of 93-3 when I got hired with SFD and had to go to two academies back to back. I was duct taped and living on aspirin.

You can check me out there and let the accusers here know what you find out.
 
LashL said:
I've been away for a couple of days, so I'll have to catch up on the posts here, but what caught my eye initially in the first skim of the replies here since I was last on was that Russell says he attended at 30-40 fires over the course of 8 YEARS.

That's less than 5 per year! Huh? What? You call that serious firefighting service? I'll read the posts in more detail later, perhaps tomorrow as I'm still wrapped up in other stuff here, but come on... five or fewer fires per YEAR? No wonder he seems to know so little about firefighting. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

LashL,

I understand your admiration for your own department.

You can have whatever concocted version of me you wish. But please don't extrapolate that to the SFD. They are a very cutting edge department and you only have to research that to discover their quality.

Your ignorance of firefighting is starting to show.

We had 4 shifts - so you had a 25% chance of getting a fire. Then you divide that by 33 stations. So, to have a well involved or fully involved fire in your first response district was not that common.

What department are your supporting? I will go review their fire data to see the number of runs and the nature of runs to show that fully involved structure fires are not that common in mid-sized cities.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
You're killing me here.

In 8 years I probably had around 30-40 fully involved structures of ordinary and wood frame construction. I never had an involved high rise fire as they are rare.
Click to expand...

I'm not killing you. You're killing yourself.

It is obvious that you do not have the knowledge or experience that you alluded to previously, you have very limited knowledge or experience with actual fires, and you now admit that you have no experience with high rise fires despite your earlier posts and references to your FF experience and your earlier references to high rise training and high rise fires.

It appears that you know little to nothing about the things that you previously pretended or have intimate knowledge of. Gee, why am I not surprised?

The audacity it takes to make the silly claims you are making with no knowledge is entertaining.
Click to expand...

Please identify which of my "claims" you are you referring to and why you find them audacious. Please be specific. Heck, I'm a lawyer, not a firefighter, and I have absolutely no doubt that I have more knowledge of firefighting than you do, thanks to my research in the relevant fields and thanks to terrific sources who actually have vast experience and knowledge that you do not possess.

You should try the research thing some time.

I finally watched those WTC 7 videos. They are great. They show the wind tunnel effect much better than the stills. Also, when the smoke periodically clears you see absolutely ZERO flame. There were fires down low like FEMA said and that was it.
Click to expand...

No experienced and professional firefighter would make such a statement. You're showing your lack of expertise and your lack of professionalism once again.

The other fires on the other floors either burned out or were extinguished by efforts earlier in the day. The fact they were out is proof that it was not a fully involved structure.
Click to expand...

You base this on what? Again, you exhibit your lack of professionalism and your lack of firefighting knowledge.

You guys will just have to PROVE it was. The burden is on you.
Click to expand...

The evidence is what it is. The evidence to date supports the conclusions drawn above. If you are claiming that that evidence is faulty or that it does not support the conclusions drawn, the onus is upon you to provide facts and evidence that prove your contrary claim.

The firefighter testimony is just as important as the testimony of explosions and possible secondary devices at the towers. You should be fair and listen to it all.
Click to expand...

I've listened to all of it and assessed all of it. Your point?

I will check back in a couple of days to see if there is anything new.
Click to expand...

Hurray for you.
 
Russell Pickering said:
You are amazing.

Seattle has a layered EMS system. ALL firefighters are EMTs. ALL paramedics are firefighters. You have to be in the companies first to get in the paramedic program.

I was an EMT/firefighter. I did not do the 9 months of paramedic training.

I was injured and resigned after 8 years.

My EMS experience previous to Seattle was for a private company.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading your history correctly, you were a paramedic before you joined the Seattle Fire Department, so the statment that "you have to be in the companies first to get in the paramedic program" doesn't make sense to me, although that could just be because I do not know what you mean when you use the term "the companies" in this particular context. Please explain.

Moreover, from my understanding of the Seatlle Fire Department protocol, it is not accurate to say that "all paramedics are firefighters". Please explain.

I didn't ask why you left, but since you brought it up unsoliticited, please elaborate.
 
Russell Pickering said:
I see 8 floors mentioned here (since they mention 11 twice). That leaves 39 floors of fully involved fires not mentioned? That's just negligence in this report. Maybe you guys should expect the same standards out of FEMA and Gravy for leaving so much stuff out!

I think you should contact FEMA and chastise them for disrespecting firefighters? Does FEMA wear a uniform? What a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that you've missed several upon which fires were observed and noted, are you suggesting that for a building to be characterized by firefighters as "fully involved" ir requires reports of fires on every floor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom