Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[LashL]

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part.

I will most certainly check your numbers, Russell. That is not “foolishness”. It is in my nature to be accurate and not just take what someone says as gospel without verifying the facts and evidence. You should try it some time.

(Plus, you have repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to compare apples and oranges and I suspect that you are doing so again here.)

BTW, I am well aware that firefighters are called to all manner of events, not just fires. In Toronto, they get dispatched to medical events, elevator rescues, alarm calls, vehicle extrications, and various and sundry other types of events. Nobody has ever suggested that fire departments do nothing but go to fire calls.

I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

As usual, Russell, you change the topic or move the goalposts in order to deflect from the actual issues at hand. The fact that you personally never worked any major fires speaks only to your own lack of knowledge and experience with such fires. You’re assuming a lot if you think that fire events are “usually” based on income brackets. While that may be applicable in Seattle, it is not necessarily true in other cities. For instance, some of the most expensive real estate in all of Canada is located in the downtown core of Toronto, and that is also where the busiest station and the busiest trucks are. Go look up the stats for station 331 which I’ve twice previously directed you to after you inquired about my partner’s station – there you’ll see some serious numbers. While we're on that topic, please tell me what your primary station in Seattle was.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

Seattle doesn’t have many fires - I don’t dispute that. The fact that it has so few is probably part of the reason why your knowledge and experience appear to be so limited.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

Huh? It’s not ignorance on my part. We were not talking about being first in or being part of a subsequent company. Why you think that I made the assumptions that you are alluding to, I’ve no idea. I am fully aware of the fact that trucks are often cleared from a fire event without even getting to the location, let alone having to actually fully engage in a particular event. You are again spouting nonsense that has nothing to do with the issues at hand and pretending that it is relevant.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

No, it’s not a lack of knowledge on my part. It’s just more obfuscation and avoiding issues on your part. As usual.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires.

Source, please.

Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

Nobody has ever said otherwise. Are you suggesting that someone has?

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.

It is the nature of good lawyers, like myself, to be thorough, to consult appropriate sources, to consult appropriate professionals in their respective fields as required, to research matters of fact and law fully, to seek out not only information that supports the client’s position but also information that contradicts the client’s position, and to assess all of it critically. (In fact, I’d go so far as to say that seeking out information that contradicts the client’s position is just as, if not more, important than seeking out information that supports the client’s position.)

If the facts and evidence do not support my client’s position, I advise the client accordingly and make the appropriate recommendations. If the client insists upon pursuing litigation in a matter upon which the facts and the law do not support the client’s position, I get written instructions to proceed despite my recommendations. So, again, you’re wrong – it’s not about “winning no matter what”. It’s about representing a client’s interests to the best of your ability and doing so honourably, professionally and ethically.

In my personal life, I operate much the same way. On any given topic, I like to be thorough, to consult appropriate sources, to consult professionals, to look for information on various sides of a topic that is contentious, and to assess all of it critically in order to come to a conclusion.

It’s not about “winning” – it’s about thinking critically, exploring various dissenting views, assessing the facts and evidence and coming to a reasonable conclusion as a result. You should try it some time.


NOTE TO OTHERS ON THE THREAD: I haven’t yet caught up with all of the posts but I apologize for the fact that some of my posts here have served only to give Russell the opportunity he wanted to ignore all of your legitimate questions that are actually on topic.

 

[LashL]

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.

Oh, get over yourself, Russell.

I didn't misrepresent you at all, and I didn't attack you for anything but your own nonsensical tinhat posts and your posts that demonstrated quite clearly that your knowledge of some very basic firefighting matters is grossly lacking. Don't blame others for your own failings.

So, you were a firefighter once upon a time, and not a very knowledgeable or experienced one. That's life.

But don't blame others for pointing out your obvious errors and lack of knowledge of things that an experienced and professional firefighter would know. You can post all day long about scheduling station dinners - that doesn't change a thing that I've written. The fact that you were clueless about fire dampers being HVAC items and not elevator hoistway items, and the fact that you admitted that you took the word of some tinhatter site that claimed otherwise, and the fact that you specifically talked about fire shutters (as opposed to dampers) and claimed or believed that they were installed in elevator hoistways (not a chance) - those are the things that twigged me to the fact that you haven't anywhere near the knowledge or experience that you pretend to have when it comes to firefighting issues.

So, don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message. Blame yourself for making it obvious that you pretended to have expertise that you do not possess. There are vast differences between being a mediocre firefighter/ems guy at a sleepy station in Seattle and actually knowing what the hell you're talking about when you try to delve into areas and issues that apparently never arose (at least not in your experience) at your station in Seattle. You brought this all on yourself by purporting to claim expertise and knowledge that you clearly do not possess. You could (and should) have just said that you didn't know anything about fire dampers or fire shutters instead of pretending otherwise. You could (and should) have just said that you have no meaningful or related experience with high rise fires. You could (and should) have just said that you have no experience with events even remotely approaching those that occurred in New York City on Sept. 11/01.

You could (and should) answer the questions of so many others on this thread who have asked you specific and relevant questions arising out of your tinhat posts which you have ignored.

You could (and should) stop avoiding the questions.

 

[LashL]

Again, your true nature is showing.

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.

It is in fact you that resorts to distortions in truth and is highly prone to exaggeration and manipulation.

Where I have been in error, I have learned and corrected myself.

The rest are my opinions and beliefs. Not lies.

You on the other hand have a desperate need to be right no matter what and proceed in spite of the facts.

Your insinuations and false allegations must really impress the courts there huh?

Blah blah blah.

You're full of crap, Russell, as is just about everything you wrote in that particular post.

This is just more of your usual avoidance of the actual questions and issues and more of your usual attempts to deflect from the questions and issues by way of nonsensical and unsubstantiated personal attacks. You're so predictable.

I seem to recall you saying in another thread that you are around 45 or 46 years old. About time for you to grow up, dont you think?

 

[LashL]

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".
Quote:
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossar...fighting_terms

That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

Wow - you offer wikipedia as your primary (and in this case, meaningless) source, and then say that according to the Seattle fire department, fully involved means fully involved. How enlightening.

Here you are, a former firefighter (albeit one lacking in knowledge and experience compared to those whose accounts of events you purport to dismiss out of hand) and you cannot even offer your own definition of the very term that you take issue with when it is used by FDNY members who were on site at the relevant time and location?

You offer up a wikipedia definition - which, by the way, even you must admit is pretty crappy. And then you say that SFD defines "fully involved" as "fully involved in fire". You do see what's wrong with this, don't you?

I find it surprising that as a former firefighter, you couldn't offer a definition of the term that you are taking such issue with.

 

[LashL]

Again, my apologies to others on this thread for continuing this off topic dialogue with Russell to the extent that it gives him the cover he wants in order to avoid answering your legitimate and on topic queries and posts.

Since I work during the day, I can't always address Russell's numerous nonsensical posts made between the middle of the night and the following afternoon/evening until later. It takes time to catch up on them, thus the numerous responses to his last 18 hours or so of posts made either directly or indirectly to me.

Please forgive the derail and don't let it stop you from pressing him for answers to your questions, which he continues to studiously avoid, as usual.

 

[Gravy]

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.

That's a lie.

For example, you said that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated. That's a lie. See, I just substantiated my claim that you're a liar by providing an example. That's what we do here.

In the Russell Pickering thread I showed other examples of your lying. I'm not talking about mistakes, but about lies.

You're in a bind, Russell, because the only way you can support your absurd claims is by inventing an alternate reality. That's one major difference between the "Truth" movement and the people who call you out on your crap. We don't have to lie.

ETA: To be fair, I should include the possibility that you're delusional and don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Moving On]

That's a lie.

For example, you said that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated. That's a lie. See, I just substantiated my claim that you're a liar by providing an example. That's what we do here.

In the Russell Pickering thread I showed other examples of your lying. I'm not talking about mistakes, but about lies.

You're in a bind, Russell, because the only way you can support your absurd claims is by inventing an alternate reality. That's one major difference between the "Truth" movement and the people who call you out on your crap. We don't have to lie.

ETA: To be fair, I should include the possibility that you're delusional and don't understand what you're saying.

Did you forget about the search feature or something?

Here is what I said:

Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051011&postcount=1276

Here is the discussion we already had about it:

No retraction is forthcoming.

1) "I consider" is a right and a prerogative.

2) Can you or have you personally substantiated the veracity of the reports you use?

EDIT: You misquoted me too.

"Very well. Present your evidence that most of my writings are unfounded or invalid, or withdraw the claim."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051366&postcount=1434

That is not a lie. Get over the lie thing. It is not going to work against me.

Have you PERSONALLY substantiated the reports you use for your claims?

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

You can rant and rave all you want now. Your insinuations about me not being a firefighter have been proved wrong and your attempts to degrade my background and then extrapolate that to the SFD itself are just your personal way of dealing with it.

Your praise of the Montreal fire department in rivalry with little 'ol Seattle is fine too. It is actually a phenomenon of sorts.

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.

Russell

 

[Gravy]

Did you forget about the search feature or something?

Here is what I said:

Here is the discussion we already had about it:

No retraction is forthcoming.

That is not a lie. Get over the lie thing. It is not going to work against me.

Have you PERSONALLY substantiated the reports you use for your claims?

Russell, have you forgotten the rest of the conversation? It went like this: "I consider you a Nazi. I have no obligation to provide proof of that claim. It is your responsibility to prove that you're not a Nazi."

So you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated, but you don't have a shred of evidence to base that belief on? Are you delusional then?

In this post I point out three lies of yours. You cannot support your absurd claims without lying. I hope you'll think long and hard about your behavior.

 

[Moving On]

Russell, have you forgotten the rest of the conversation? It went like this: "I consider you a Nazi. I have no obligation to provide proof of that claim. It is your responsibility to prove that you're not a Nazi."

So you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated, but you don't have a shred of evidence to base that belief on? Are you delusional then?

In this post I point out three lies of yours. You cannot support your absurd claims without lying. I hope you'll think long and hard about your behavior.

The Nazi thing is great! Good one. I think originally you said neo Nazi but you are not very good at quotes and tend to be selective. Anyway........

There is no lie there. Here is the basic fallacy of your tactic. You cannot "catch" somebody in a lie that doesn't lie. It is that simple.

I can swear under oath or take a lie detector test at any time about any aspect of my life and have zero stress. I have never once sat here and typed anything with the intent to deceive. Never, not once.

I operate in my own name 100% open to anything. Every factual challenge about myself has been responded to with documentation and the ability for you to verify it.

What I have presented about my beliefs and opinions regarding 9/11 have had many factual errors that have been corrected at various stages, or in the case of my website will be corrected when I get done with this phase of research (which by the way you have helped with immensely and guaranteed that more people will understand 9/11 and the valid questions surrounding it).

I am not going to tit for tat you on misrepresentations you have made (god knows LashL is already a handful enough). I caught you in a major one in regards to Craig Bartmer.

You run around here with your excessive (in my opinion) desire to control people's thought and use very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts. "Protecting lurkers" as you put it.

Is it that you just don't want people to think for themselves? Are you the thought police?

So, after I present many things here in evidential form, generally just taking quotes from documents you consider valid but have neglected to include in your statements, you have only one thing to resort to. A strategy of personally discrediting me.

That is the force of insinuation and repetition. Liar, liar, liar, dishonest, blah blah blah over and over and over again.

Go for it. You truly only shame yourself in the process and become more obvious every time you do it. I have watched you over time sink to lower and lower levels. That indicates insecurity and a shaky case in my life experience.

By exposing yourself this way you have bolstered my beliefs and ensured that many more people in this world will have a chance to ask questions and find their own answers without your monitoring.

Thank you!

 

[Horatius]

"It's not a lie if you believe it."

-George Costanza

 

[Gravy]

You run around here with your excessive (in my opinion) desire to control people's thought and use very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts. "Protecting lurkers" as you put it.

Is it that you just don't want people to think for themselves? Are you the thought police?

So, after I present many things here in evidential form, generally just taking quotes from documents you consider valid but have neglected to include in your statements, you have only one thing to resort to. A strategy of personally discrediting me.

There you go again. You said that you've been 100% honest here. I pointed out three lies that you've told. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation, agreed? I provided evidence to back my claim that you lie. You have provided no evidence that my sources are bad. Zero.

Is it foolish to call you a Nazi without evidence? Of course it is, even though it may be "just an opinion." It's plain stupid. Likewise, saying that you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated is plain stupid. It's equivalent to saying that you believe I'm the Tooth Fairy. Who cares? Either you have the evidence to back your claims or you don't. And Russell, over and over and over again you prove that you don't.

Now, show me how I've used "very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts." Can you show that, or are you just calling me the Tooth Fairy again? I'm going to call you on your b.s. every single time, Russell. Count on it.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." Fire Engineering, 10/2002

For the umpteenth time, Russell, why should we believe you and not the FDNY? You can keep running, but the question isn't going away.

By the way, have you been able to think of a claim that Loose Change gets right, or do you need more time?

 

[Moving On]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

 

[Gravy]

Yes, you have lied. I proved it.

Now answer the question I highlighted. Or are you yellow?

 

[Spins]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

So, people make predictions all the time but you only remember the ones that come true. Just because one of them was "announced by Gullianai" (as you put it) makes absolutely no difference.

For example, here's a prediction made by Stanley Praimnath to Brian Clark, both WTC South Tower survivors that made it out from above the impact zone...

NARRATOR: Seven minutes later Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath had made it down the South Tower and were four blocks away. They stopped and looked round.

BRIAN CLARK: And Stanley said to me, he said "You know I think those, those buildings could go over," and I said "There's no way," I said "Those are steel structures." I said "That's furniture and paper and carpeting and draperies and things like that that are burning."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

Also I'm still waiting for this prediction made by Alex Jones...

I fully expect one more 'event' this year to impact theUnited States. My gut feeling is that it will be an earthquake >7.7 in magnitude with insured losses to exceed $25 billion. That number should have been less but presently real estate is far overvalued.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/weather_mod_katrina_tsunami_called_katrina.htm

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

??

 

[WildCat]

??

Because it's easier to throw a hissy fit and run away than it is to address facts that directly contradict the premise that has been his whole purpose in life the last several years.

 

[Pardalis]

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

Are you accusing Rudy Giuliani of something?

Could they just have been right?

 

[WildCat]

Are you accusing Rudy Giuliani of something?

Could they just have been right?

The firefighters, Giuliani, Bloomberg, apparently just about everyone in NYC on 9/11 was in on it.

 

[Moving On]

??

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.