Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[LashL]

SUMMARY:

1) No photos of significant fires.

So, is it your position that if there are no photographs of any given fire from a particular vantage point at a particular time, the alleged fire did not occur?

2) No video of 47 stories fully involved.

So, is it your position that if there are no video recordings of any given fire from a particular vantage point at a particular time, the alleged fire did no occur?

3) No mention of 47 floors of fully involved fire in FEMA. (If that was the case don't you think the FEMA report would have been easy to write?)

Aside from the fact that you seem to be relying solely upon a very short and basic report from FEMA at an early date, please elaborate upon what "fully involved" means in the context in which you have used it, and in the context in which it is used by firefighters and fire service reports.

4) A scientific explanation for the circulation of the smoke related to the unventilated fuel fires that FEMA did mention.

As noted above, the FEMA report was a preliminary report and identified as such. Have you not kept up to date since then?

5) In relation to the fuel fires FEMA said, "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

See above. You are aware, are you not, that FEMA's involvement was preliminary in nature and that further investigation and reporting has been undertaken by NIST since then, and that the final report of the NIST regarding WTC7 is pending and due some time in 2007?

You guys should just stop. It is looking bad.

Stop what?

It is you who looks bad, Russell. Very, very bad. You have demonstrated that your "research" is crap. You have demonstrated that your research skills are sorely lacking. You have demonstrated that your pretence to dozens of witnesses and a vast array of evidence is nonsense. You have demonstrated that you have little to no knowledge of firefighting basics despite claiming that you were a firefighter for several years. You have demonstrated that you have no logical or critical thinking skills. You have demonstrated that you know not of what you speak in so many areas that I'm almost embarrassed on your behalf just because you don't seem to have the sense to be embarrassed on your own behalf.

 

[beachnut]

Russell, what is causing all this smoke?

do you think part of that smoke is the 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of fuel burning during the day in WTC7 intended to run generators for the WTC complex?

 

[LashL]

<snip>some of them were there and heard a lot of Ground Zero rumors and at first came back believing secondary devices had been used. They have even come to Wyoming to visit me and have read my website and are very open to discussing it.

Sources, please. Names and contact information would be excellent. I'm sure you'll have no problem providing them, right?

Don't you ever get tired of looking incompetent????

You're the only one looking incompetent on this thread thusfar. I neither know nor care whether your incompetence tires you.

 

[LashL]

<snip>I am sorry about the slight change in demeanor, but you guys have dipped so low that I just have to toughen up a bit.

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

Nonsense. You're the one feeding from the bottom of the trough, and you're the one incapable of logical or critical thinking. Your gratuitous and unwarranted insults directed to others here are just further examples of your inability to deal rationally with legitimate debate and legitimate commentary.

You might be able to fool the LC gang with your pretense of intellectual superiority, Russell, but you're not fooling anyone here. The only "idiocy" displayed on this thread so far has come from you.

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

You simply overstate yourself.

If you feel after 8 years as a professional firefighter, 2 years as a volunteer, 3 academies and 2 years as a private EMS provider your knowledge exceeds mine, then have at it.

It is fine with me.

The EMS experience for the private BLS company I have was as an EMT. In King County you have to go through Harborview paramedic training which is 9 months.

The primary path to that is through the SFD. You have to be a firefighter first out in the companies. The companies refers to either a truck or an engine operation. Then you have to try and get as much time on an aid car in the process. The soonest I have ever been aware of somebody making it into the program is about 2 years after their probation as a firefighter.

After the paramedics get their certification they still have to remain current as a firefighter. They also have to carry bunker gear and remain prepared for firefighting duties. On what is known as a debit day in the SFD the paramedics actually work on trucks and engines as regular firefighters.

Funny you should bring this all up as a bunch of guys from my old station just called and I was telling them about you and what you say about me. They got a good laugh.

My reputation there is just fine.

You are reaching a level of performance here that is so far out of your realm of knowledge - trust me when I say it looks silly.

Please tell me what department you support and I will compare run volume and fire statistics for you.

Russell

PS - JREF tactics and personal discrediting can not affect me. I know myself and my past better than you do even if you are really an attorney. Do they have a psychological test for the bars there?

 

[Moving On]

Sources, please. Names and contact information would be excellent. I'm sure you'll have no problem providing them, right?

I wouldn't trust you with the name or phone number of one of my friends if it was my last breath.

You have an unpredictible dual nature and maliciousness that is not worthy of one ounce of trust from any open and honest person in my opinion.

 

[WildCat]

Russell pops back in, ignores all the questions asked. What a shock...

Oh well, I'll ask again...
Are all the named firefighters who witnessed the state of WTC 7 pre-collapse lying Russell?

How many of those who heard explosions today think there were explosives?

 

[Moving On]

In Seattle I was never aware of that practice - no. All I know directly is that elevator shafts can be pressurized and the air movement controlled.

Every city has varying codes and I relied on the one link I sent you and an apparently erroneous segment of a film for my reference in regards to the WTC. Good lessons though.

In Seattle at the firefighter level even something as simple as a range hood was not inspected or tested by us. We simply checked the dates of the last certified inspector's sign off on a tag. Those were usually provided by private companies. Periodic pressurization tests etc. were also conducted by building maintenance and recorded on logs. So my detailed knowledge on various systems is limited.

The above quote was what I privately emailed to LashL to make my misunderstanding about fire shutters/ dampers clear.

I did not and do not know the codes in other cities including NY. I relied on erroneous information from 2 sources. I thought maybe NY had some features in those type of high rises that I am not familiar with. The tallest building is in Seattle is 76 stories.

Even when it came to building pressurization systems in the high rises there, the building manager would operate them under incident command if required because of the specialty knowledge required.

I was a basic FF. At each successive level from Lieutenant, Captain and Chief there is much more knowledge required. They attend specialty classes and have a desire for advancement. They are tested at much higher levels. So LashL is correct in that her SO as a Captain would know a hell of a lot more than I do, and frankly I hope so as I trusted my life to individuals such as them.

My primary interest when joining the SFD was to go through the paramedic program. I decided not to and was injured as well. I took the opportunity to sign off on my L&I because I am not a litigious person, and resigned to move on with my life. That profession turned out not to be the end all for me is all.

The friends I still have there will be the first one to tell you I "walk to the beat of a different drummer" but I can assure you my reputation as an EMT and firefighter are just fine. They would trust their sick family member to me and go into a building with me any day.

If you wish to keep pushing this LashL then I will scan many documents and photos just for you. Then you can read my certificates and hours of training and valedictorian status for yourself and then try and explain to your audience how as an attorney you understand firefighting better than I.

So just stop with the madness.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Russell pops back in, ignores all the questions asked. What a shock...

Oh well, I'll ask again...
Are all the named firefighters who witnessed the state of WTC 7 pre-collapse lying Russell?

How many of those who heard explosions today think there were explosives?

Most of the questions are ridiculous and the possibility of presenting anything that is not responded to by pathetic personal attack is about zero from my experience.

You ignore the evidence no matter what it is. Video and scientific papers are not enough for you.

I did not ever say I have any idea what any of them believe today. Since Gravy or you or anybody else here hasn't actually interviewed them, neither do you.

Just like Bill Manning. I never said he believes in anything like a CT version of things, I just documented the destruction of evidence that upset him via his words.

You ask me to do interviews but all you do is read the Gravyized version of the world and parrot it. This is Skeptianity and I am now becoming aware of the dogma and the preachers. Trust me when I say that I am even more disappointed than you are about the situation here.

Your blind obedience to government reports and the fact that your are not truly questioning 9/11 is your problem. Not mine.

The people who lied you into a war and have killed 3000 American soldiers and as of recent reports 150,000 Iraqis are not worthy of trust.

They lied and they killed.

Meanwhile you want to bicker over your interpretation of my past experience as a firefighter? The opposite of killing is what I did.

 

[Crungy]

You are reaching a level of performance here that is so far out of your realm of knowledge - trust me when I say it looks silly.

Hmmm. In what other areas of 9/11 research have I seen that behavior?

 

[LashL]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Yes, indeed. That's one of Russell's favourites. Sadly, he invokes that particular fallacy repeatedly, along with several other fallacies that he invokes frequently. I don't know whether he just doesn't understand them or whether he does but pretends not to. I'm guessing the former rather than the latter.

 

[Moving On]

Yes, indeed. That's one of Russell's favourites. Sadly, he invokes that particular fallacy repeatedly, along with several other fallacies that he invokes frequently. I don't know whether he just doesn't understand them or whether he does but pretends not to. I'm guessing the former rather than the latter.

What is the department you are supporting in contrast to my experience?

I want to evaluate their yearly run statistics and fire data.

 

[Crungy]

Just like Bill Manning. I never said he believes in anything like a CT version of things, I just documented the destruction of evidence that upset him via his words.

That would be fair enough if you didn't offer up this rebuttal to a comment accusing you of claiming Mr. Manning supports a CT version of things?

Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His complaints were only related to the fire safety of tall buildings.

I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...ICLE_ID=131225

If what you're saying know is true, then I would have made myself clear and not replied in the manner that you did.

 

[beachnut]

Most of the questions are ridiculous and the possibility of presenting anything that is not responded to by pathetic personal attack is about zero from my experience.

You ignore the evidence no matter what it is. Video and scientific papers are not enough for you.

I did not ever say I have any idea what any of them believe today. Since Gravy or you or anybody else here hasn't actually interviewed them, neither do you.

Just like Bill Manning. I never said he believes in anything like a CT version of things, I just documented the destruction of evidence that upset him via his words.

You ask me to do interviews but all you do is read the Gravyized version of the world and parrot it. This is Skeptianity and I am now becoming aware of the dogma and the preachers. Trust me when I say that I am even more disappointed than you are about the situation here.

Your blind obedience to government reports and the fact that your are not truly questioning 9/11 is your problem. Not mine.

The people who lied you into a war and have killed 3000 American soldiers and as of recent reports 150,000 Iraqis are not worthy of trust.

They lied and they killed.

Meanwhile you want to bicker over your interpretation of my past experience as a firefighter? The opposite of killing is what I did.

you are a ct for political reasons only!!!? This is how I read your post.

you are blinded by politics

you can ignore Saddam shooting missiles at my buddies in the Air Force for 10 years, and his desire to obtain nukes and other weapons in the future, and his inability to hand over terrorist when they transited his country – but why does this impact your ability to tell the truth about 9/11? See I was ready to go to war with Saddam the first time he broke the agreement at the end of the war, but then you love Saddam or something?

you need to tell the Iraq people to stop killing Iraq people! Saddam is gone, he shot at me, I think he needs to go, bye Saddam not sure what you, Saddam have to do with dolts telling lies about 9/11 here in the US but I think I found a one – but this has nothing to do with 9/11 lies, why do you lie about this???

so you make up lies about 9/11 and refuse to tell the truth because of your politics?

This is what you just posted, you are politically blind an not able to use knowledge and judgment, so you joined the CT on 9/11 to help mislead others?

 

[LashL]

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?

You, of all people, have some nerve accusing others of "cherry picking" or presenting BS. That is precisely what you have done since you've been here.

Unlike the tinhatters, a group to which you belong, most skeptics actually present quotes and context fairly. You should try it some time.

 

[LashL]

Russell, what causes a "continuous source of smoke"?

This response is just to give you an idea of the type of stuff I am not responding to in the future.

Why not just answer the straightforward question, Russell? You being a former firefighter and all.

 

[Moving On]

That would be fair enough if you didn't offer up this rebuttal to a comment accusing you of claiming Mr. Manning supports a CT version of things?

If what you're saying know is true, then I would have made myself clear and not replied in the manner that you did.

I can see the potential for misunderstanding.

I was responding to the safety part.

He was pissed off about the destruction of evidence too.

I guess you can say that was for safety reasons he was pissed but there is no point in debating it further. The destruction of evidence was inappropriate for many reasons.

 

[Moving On]

you are a ct for political reasons only!!!? This is how I read your post.

you are blinded by politics

you can ignore Saddam shooting missiles at my buddies in the Air Force for 10 years, and his desire to obtain nukes and other weapons in the future, and his inability to hand over terrorist when they transited his country – but why does this impact your ability to tell the truth about 9/11? See I was ready to go to war with Saddam the first time he broke the agreement at the end of the war, but then you love Saddam or something?

you need to tell the Iraq people to stop killing Iraq people! Saddam is gone, he shot at me, I think he needs to go, bye Saddam not sure what you, Saddam have to do with dolts telling lies about 9/11 here in the US but I think I found a one – but this has nothing to do with 9/11 lies, why do you lie about this???

so you make up lies about 9/11 and refuse to tell the truth because of your politics?

This is what you just posted, you are politically blind an not able to use knowledge and judgment, so you joined the CT on 9/11 to help mislead others?

SPIN SPIN SPIN - you're making me dizzy.

You are blinded by Skeptianity and its preachers.

 

[Moving On]

Why not just answer the straightforward question, Russell? You being a former firefighter and all.

Please direct me to the name of the fire department you support so I can factually respond to your accusations.

 

[maccy]

Russell,

I've been following this thread for some time and I'm losing track of the parts of your argument that are concerned with the evidence.

Putting aside your feelings about the behaviour of some of the posters here and any issues of your status as a former firefighter, could you please answer the following questions?

1. How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2081821&postcount=443 ?

2. How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

3. If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

4. Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

5. If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

6. Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

If you feel you've already answered these questions, would you mind repeating yourself? I've not seen anything really clear in the thread so far (it is getting long).

Thanks

Matthew