Some simple Tower 7 questions

[Bell]

I am a fireman, doesn't the FDNY have several hose tenders that can lay 1000ft of 5inch in a matter of minutes? I can imagine that there were thousands of different variables to consider and I place no blame on the FDNY for the collapse of tower 7. Somebody in charge chose to commit the dept's resources to other structures that had already collapsed or had received major damage when the first two towers collapsed.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but you would assume that someone in a position to chose which buildings should and could most likely be saved would have easily chosen tower 7. Considering the importance of it's occupants and the relatively small amount of damage compared to the other adjacent structures that should have been the first building to save.
Regardless, it still doesn't explain why any of the FDNY Chief's would assume that the building was going to fall down.


My point exactly, if the Commissioner wanted to save tower 7 I think ya'll could have easily made it happen.

*pling*

 

[Pardalis]

*pling*

"pling"?

Are you OK? Did you bump your head?

 

[Bell]

"pling"?

Are you OK? Did you bump your head?

I guess Das Boat got picked up by enemy sonar

 

[Gravy]

My point exactly, if the Commissioner wanted to save tower 7 I think ya'll could have easily made it happen.

Oh, my God. Okay, Submersible, now I'm going to insist that you read the WTC 7 section of NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Emergency Response Operations http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-8index.htm

Then read the first responder accounts I've already referred you to.

Then come back here and blame the FDNY if you're that stupid.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I am a fireman, doesn't the FDNY have several hose tenders that can lay 1000ft of 5inch in a matter of minutes?

My understanding is that NYFD doesn't use anything larger than 3.5 inch hose, other than possibly with their "super pumper". I don't know whether they have any "hose tenders", but I don't see anything called a "hose tender" listed in their inventory:

http://nyfd.com/frontpage/shops.html

 

[maccy]

This building is burning:
http://www.cassvillefire.org/images/Brfire.jpg

Small flames can be seen in a few windows of this building:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-19.jpg

A few more flames:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-16.jpg

I don't think any of those light reflections are flames, maybe one:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-17.jpg

Do you really think it's reasonable to compare the fire in a small wooden building photographed at night with a fire in a very large metal, glass and concrete building photographed in bright sunshine and producing large amounts of thick black smoke (from diesel)?

Also, why do say that the steel has to melt in order to cause collapse?

If you're going to bring thermite into it please explain:

1. where thermite has been used to demolish buildings before;

2. how much thermite would be needed to demolish WTC 7;

3. how the thermite would be placed in the building and kept secret;

4. how that thermite would be detonated;

5. how the thermite could be made to cut vertical steel columns; and

6. if you're claiming molten metal at WTC7 and that it was caused by thermite, please specify:
a. a source for the molten metal, including when it was found;
b. what type of metal it is, and why you think this;
c. an estimate of the temperature of the metal, please show how you reached this estimate;
d. the amount of heat energy required to keep the metal at this temperature for the period that it was buried;
e. the amount of heat you would expect the rubble to trap - ie the quality of the insulation; and, from this
f. the amount of thermite required to generate this energy and the period over which it would have to burn.

As well as everything you've been recommended so far, I urge to look at this article about WTC7:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

and, preferably, these supporting articles about the World Trade Center in general:

http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

Please also bear in mind that we don't have a full detailed account of what happened at WTC7 as yet - that will come in the final NIST report.

 

[Horatius]

I know hindsight is 20/20 but you would assume that someone in a position to chose which buildings should and could most likely be saved would have easily chosen tower 7. Considering the importance of it's occupants and the relatively small amount of damage compared to the other adjacent structures that should have been the first building to save.
Regardless, it still doesn't explain why any of the FDNY Chief's would assume that the building was going to fall down.


My point exactly, if the Commissioner wanted to save tower 7 I think ya'll could have easily made it happen.

Did you ever consider that the guys in charge did make such an assesment, but that they (being right there, and not just looking at pictures) decided it was too damaged to be worth saving? Isn't the fact that they chose to work on other buildings pretty good evidence that they believed, at that time, that WTC7 was damaged beyond hope? Don't you believe they must have been in a better position to make that call than any of us?

So if you believe they didn't have such information, why then did they make the call they did?

 

[WildCat]

My point exactly, if the Commissioner wanted to save tower 7 I think ya'll could have easily made it happen.

Wher would the water come from?

 

[Trigood]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

That the earth is flat and the sun revolves areound it is so totally obvious, from looking at the landscape and seeing the sun rise and set every day.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

[Welcome to the 15th century, folks!]

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

My understanding is that NYFD doesn't use anything larger than 3.5 inch hose, other than possibly with their "super pumper". I don't know whether they have any "hose tenders", but I don't see anything called a "hose tender" listed in their inventory:

http://nyfd.com/frontpage/shops.html

I'm probably in error here. Their "maxi-water" system contains hose-tenders with "large diameter hose", amount unspecified. But as a fireman, Submariner should be able to calculate the required fireflow in a building the size of WTC7 and the amount of water that 5-inch hose can carry for 1000 feet.

 

[GlennB]

This is an image showing the smoke rising from Towers 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7.

No it isn't.

That photo was taken in the afternoon. The light grey smoke from dead centre of that photo is from GZ, the bulk of the dark smoke is from WTC7

Compare with :

"minor fires on a few floors" my arse

 

[Bell]

And I'm sure Das Boat thought about the 343 fireman that were killed by the collapse of the towers, and the concern from the rescue personal to save the victims from the rubble, over saving a building?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But as a fireman, Submariner should be able to calculate the required fireflow in a building the size of WTC7 and the amount of water that 5-inch hose can carry for 1000 feet.

Keeping in mind that since the wall on 1 side of WTC7 was destroyed for almost half the height of the building, the Oxygen supply for the fires wouldn't necessarily be limited to the Oxygen already in the building.

 

[Submersible]

Submersible, I hate to promote my own paper again, but I did spend a lot of time compiling the eyewitness reports of the first responders. Please read them if you think the WTC 7 fires and damage weren't enormous, and if you think that everyone who inspected the building did not think it was going to collapse. The paper is linked in my signature.

Pardalis, in his post above, means to ask what animal that most resembles. That's sort of the point of my avatar also.

I looked at both your PDF paper and downloaded your doc file, neither one of them explain why you told me to look at pages 72-77 and none of the images explain what contents could have been found in tower 7 to generate the heat necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the building.
Apparently you hate to answer the questions I asked you more than you hate to promote your paper. I hate to inform you but your wonderful little paper apparently doesn't answer the questions I asked.

The actual demolitions experts who saw building 7 come down at close range say you are wrong. They say there was no way the building could withstand the damage and fires, and they say there was NO sign of demolitions charges being used. The instruments they use to detect demolitions effects – seismographs – were in the neighborhood and also show no sign of demolition blasts.

The building withstood the minor damage and the minor fires up until the moment when the entire structure collapsed, almost flush, and almost at a free fall speed.
I can appreciate that you spent quite a bit of time compiling all of those first hand accounts, but what makes their version of the story valid compared to these first hand accounts?
http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/

I know you've been over this a hundred times before, but you apparently enjoy participating in these threads so why don't you respond to the questions that are asked instead of referring people to your 'paper', especially when you send me to look at your answer to a question that doesn't even apply?
And I know it doesn't apply to tower 7, but I'll ask you again... does your paper also explain the flash of fire in these images?

As you said, steel loses about half its strength at 600C. The temperatures in residential fires can reach 600-700C.

Substantiate this claim.

If a fire produces heat long enough, the heat will eventually penetrate the fireproofing.

If the tip of the flame is directed towards the fireproofing yes, so what contents could have surrounded the structural beams in tower 7 that would have directed enough heat straight towards them, and also burn long enough to actually weaken the beam.

Do any of you believe that the beams were for some reason completely surrounded and wrapped with a tremendous amount of fuel and flamable objects?
Because that is the only way enough heat could have been generated for the period of time it would take to bring the temperature of the steel above a couple hundred degrees.

 

[Bell]

I looked at both your PDF paper and downloaded your doc file, neither one of them explain why you told me to look at pages 72-77 and none of the images explain what contents could have been found in tower 7 to generate the heat necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the building.
Apparently you hate to answer the questions I asked you more than you hate to promote your paper. I hate to inform you but your wonderful little paper apparently doesn't answer the questions I asked.



The building withstood the minor damage and the minor fires up until the moment when the entire structure collapsed, almost flush, and almost at a free fall speed.
I can appreciate that you spent quite a bit of time compiling all of those first hand accounts, but what makes their version of the story valid compared to these first hand accounts?
http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/

I know you've been over this a hundred times before, but you apparently enjoy participating in these threads so why don't you respond to the questions that are asked instead of referring people to your 'paper', especially when you send me to look at your answer to a question that doesn't even apply?
And I know it doesn't apply to tower 7, but I'll ask you again... does your paper also explain the flash of fire in these images?
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/Allegedflash.jpg/300px-Allegedflash.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/Alegedflash2.JPG/250px-Alegedflash2.JPG[/qimg]




Substantiate this claim.


If the tip of the flame is directed towards the fireproofing yes, so what contents could have surrounded the structural beams in tower 7 that would have directed enough heat straight towards them, and also burn long enough to actually weaken the beam.

Do any of you believe that the beams were for some reason completely surrounded and wrapped with a tremendous amount of fuel and flamable objects?
Because that is the only way enough heat could have been generated for the period of time it would take to bring the temperature of the steel above a couple hundred degrees.

*pling*

 

[Trigood]

I am a fireman, doesn't the FDNY have several hose tenders that can lay 1000ft of 5inch in a matter of minutes? I can imagine that there were thousands of different variables to consider and I place no blame on the FDNY for the collapse of tower 7. Somebody in charge chose to commit the dept's resources to other structures that had already collapsed or had received major damage when the first two towers collapsed.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but you would assume that someone in a position to chose which buildings should and could most likely be saved would have easily chosen tower 7. Considering the importance of it's occupants and the relatively small amount of damage compared to the other adjacent structures that should have been the first building to save.
Regardless, it still doesn't explain why any of the FDNY Chief's would assume that the building was going to fall down.

I wonder if you've followed Gravy's advice and read his paper on WTC 7:

New: WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement" .doc file or PDF

I think you'll find a lot of the answers you seek there. For example, there was quite a bit of damage to WTC7, to the extent that the fire commanders did not feel it was safe to send firefighters in there. Also, there was failure of the water mains, and no water for fighting a fire means it rages out of control and makes conditions ever more dangerous for the firefighters. Also, there had been "such loss of life" (as Silverstein would later say) and really the last thing on anyone's mind at that point was saving a building (as opposed to saving people). At that point, many buildings had been damaged irretrievably (WTC1-6 and St Nicholas church, minor damage to many others); what was one, more or less?

Yes, in the "best of all possible worlds," the FDNY would have struggled mightily and quixotically to save building 7. However, that day was already too old by 2 or 3 pm and they gave up the fight. Totally understandable, imho.

BTW, where and how long have you been a fireman? Just wondering...

 

[Trigood]

I thought the bad guys brought it down just to leave more clues. Conspirators love to leave clues that are really obvious to conspiracy buffs--but invisible to everyone else in the world.

I never get these raging clues. Must be hormonal.

 

[maccy]

AFAIK, the entire NIST can kiss a sick cat in the ass.

From this I have to conclude that you are unable to criticise NIST in any detail or address any of the specifics of their working hypothesis and so result to an insult. So, you have insults and arguments from incredulity, why should anyone believe you?

For the most part I've just been asking questions. I think the rational and more than likely already understood answers to most of them indicate that many people from all walks of life have lied about the events of 9/11. More than likely most of them didn't have a choice.

So NIST, FEMA, Popular Mechanics and most of the posters on this forum , to name but a few, are accessories to mass murder and are lying to protect the government? And most of them are being forced to do so? By what amazing power is this massive coercion going on? How is made to work on engineers, demolition experts, journalists, politicians and secret service agents from outside the US? From Iran, China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Syria, France, Germany? Why aren't Al Jazeera running with this?

Here's a post from another thread about NIST

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!

Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

For reference here are some of the staff and contractors involved in the NIST WTC reports:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/bios_ncstadvcom.htm

I'm sure you'll have glib answers for all of this, but as your arguments are essentially self-debunking in their stupidity and you questions are nothing new, I'm not especially worried that you'll persuade anybody of anything.

I think its quite sad that you believe what you do, but if you aren't prepared to learn then I can live with your ignorance as you are essentially harmless.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

I am but a lowly [welding] engineering tech (no pinky ring ) so will defer to any whose education and knowledge in the area of structural engineering surpasses my own.

My understanding after reading the NIST interm report on the collapse of WTC 7 is that thermal cooling may have played a large roll in the global collapse. To paraphrase the report itself as the fires burnt out and the structure cooled (unevenly) tensile forces strong enough to cause failure of the bolted and/or welded connections may have been present.

Can anyone explain this to me in greater detail (I have the feeling that the final NIST report will center on this type of hypothesis).

 

[~enigma~]

Why are you guys wasting your time with this idiot? From looking at his posts I doubt any of you really think he is looking for answers since his mind is already made up. Stop giving credibility to a moron.