JONES Religious Studies Prof Takes on Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts... Poorly

[Gravy]

Even if we pretend for the sake of argument that someone from OEM claimed the building would collapse and passed this info on down the line (even though you have not proven this)....what does this all mean?

He's referring to Michael Currid's account, in which someone from the OEM said the building was unsafe. Currid and some others shouted up the WTC stairwells for everyone to come out. Currid says, “The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Consensus among whom? And where did the OEM person get that information? From the FDNY? From OEM engineers, independently? Why does it possibly matter? RedIbis doesn't seem to know that the fire Chiefs were in charge of the scene, not OEM.

We KNOW that firefighters inspected the building, determined that was unsafe and likely to collapse, and made the call to clear the area. No firefighters disagree. Claiming otherwise is a despicable lie.

BTW: Currid was Sergeant-at-Arms for the Uniformed Firefighters' Association, which fights for firefighter safety and benefits. RedIbis and the other liars should contact him and tell him that he's a cowardly shill, and print his response here.

 

[RedIbis]

Spin away guys and gals:

40. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out. (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

 

[Brainster]

I see what Red Ibis' point is; many of the testimonies do indicate that the firemen were told by other FDNY personnel that WTC-7 was coming down, and did not make that determination themselves. It's a reasonable argument to make, even if it is made by unreasonable people. Of course, we know that only goes one step further, to Chief Nigro. And it doesn't help them with statements like this, from Firefighter Kevin Hill:

"At that time there was a lot of fire going on. I think it was the Customs House was roaring. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring."

Or this, from firefighter Fred Marsilla:

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing.

Or this, from Firefighter Eugene Kelty, Jr.:

And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building?

Or Firefighter Richard Banaciski:

We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.

 

[RedIbis]

I see what Red Ibis' point is; many of the testimonies do indicate that the firemen were told by other FDNY personnel that WTC-7 was coming down, and did not make that determination themselves. It's a reasonable argument to make, even if it is made by unreasonable people.

Gee thanks. But most importantly, you see the point.

 

[Gravy]

I see what Red Ibis' point is; many of the testimonies do indicate that the firemen were told by other FDNY personnel that WTC-7 was coming down, and did not make that determination themselves.

I completely fail to see the point. No one claims otherwise. It's just another pathetic strawman argument. The commanding officers are tasked with those decisions. They made them, supported by the accounts like those you quoted, and by the efforts of firefighters such as those who measured the building's lean with a transit.

The hundreds of firefighters who followed the orders do not dispute the severity of the situation or that it was the FDNY's call to clear the area.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#23m00s

 

[uk_dave]

So basically, even if the assessment that wtc7 was a lost cause came from higher up chain of command, none of the firefighters who had experienced the condition of the building appear to have been at all surprised at this assessment.

'Truthers', where are the verifiable quotes from firefighters who expressed complete shock and surprise when wtc7 collapsed?

Where are the comments from those people who were closest to wtc7 before it collapsed expressing their mystification that this building, despite the damage they witnessed and the intensity and spread of the fires, should collapse in contradiction of everything they know about the effect of fire on steel framed structures?*

Of course the helpful thing about the approach the 'truthers' are taking on this one is that, by focusing on the handful of people they can find quotes from who actually made the assessment themselves, rather than were told it by others, they have a much smaller pool of firefighters to go and interview and accuse of complicity. Now there is no excuse.

ETA: *Meaning, what 'truthers' believe to be magical properties of steel framed structures

 

[Open Blinded]

Goodness. You completely misinterpreted my point. Never did I suggest that some top members of the FDNY didn't state that the bldg would collapse.

You're charging a strawman on this one.

Did he completely misrepresent you? Or did you say?:
"The FDNY did not decide anything."

And then gravy showed you a direct quote from Chief Nigro that contradicted your claim:
"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

Why don't you address your mistake? Or you could use your tired response of claiming strawman, even though your own words are quoted not my interpretation of your words.

 

[CHF]

So, Red, after all that...What exactly is your point?

How does any of this fit into a demolition theory that doesn't implicate the FDNY?

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is what I am getting as the bone of contention...

Did the OEM, or some people within, indicated that the building was likely going to collapse, and gave word to the FDNY, from which the captains/team leaders, etc... made the decision to pull back/out? Was the OEM the originator of the information of the impending collapse, or was it members of the FDNY, or some third party?

Is this the essence of what is being argued over/about?

Here are questions I have, with limited reading of the testimonies in question...

Was it the case in all instances, (if not in how many incidences is documented) that the OEM were the ones giving the word it would collapse?

The key to answering, is who originally made the observation that the building was going to collapse? Did the OEM observe and make this assertion, or did they get this info from someone else, and if so who?

How do we know it was not members of the FDNY who provided OEM with this info, who then diseminated it back down through the FDNY ranks? How do we know whether it came from demolition experts, or structural specialists on the ground, who then relayed it to OEM, and then it got sent down through? How do we know that members of both OEM and FDNY were not briefed simultaneously on this by some third party, and then it got sent down through?

How do we know some FDNY firefighters themselves did not make this assessment?

If we read all of the testimonies, is it clear in any instance WHO MADE THE OBSERVATION AND ORIGINAL JUDGEMENT that WTC7 was going to collapse?

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

So, Red, after all that...What exactly is your point?

He doesn't have one.

RedIbis, as my grandfather used to say, is just picking fly ***** out of black pepper.

He's doing nothing more than lamely trying to wind us up and score meaningless points in an Internet debate.

 

[T.A.M.]

This argument, is similar to the one made by the moronic duo of CIT.

(A)
The witnesses don't actually say "I saw the plane hit the wall of the pentagon" there for, there testimony does not prove a plane hit the building.

Similarly, the argument here is...

(B)
The firefighters do not say "The Fire Chief made the assessment of the building integrity, and as a result gave the word to pull back due to impending collapse", there for we discount their testimony as it relates to the FDNY making the assessment the building was going to collapse.

The implication in example (A) is that the witnesses were fooled, and the plane flew over the pentagon rather than hitting it, because the words "I saw the plane hit the pentagon wall" were not directly spoken.

The implication in example (B) is that because the words "the FDNY Chief (Or some other higher up) made the assessment and from that decided" were not used in most of the firefighter testimonies, that there is no proof that the FDNY assessed the building was going to collapse, so the leap can be made that it might have been the evil OEM, or some evil doer within, who sent out this false information, which then got spread throughout.

Does that sound about right??

TAM

 

[Gravy]

If we read all of the testimonies, is it clear in any instance WHO MADE THE OBSERVATION AND ORIGINAL JUDGEMENT that WTC7 was going to collapse?

TAM

I don't think that matters at all. It's clear that several individuals and groups of firefighters were involved in assessing the building's condition. If someone in the OEM (such as the engineer who warned about the collapse of WTC 1) made the same assessment, then that's more evidence that the collapse was expected, not less.

Conspiracy liars can't seem to grasp this concept. Nor can they grasp the concept that Nigro made the most important decision, for the right reasons, based on his judgment and that of the experts below him.

 

[boloboffin]

One sticking point for a fellow/gal over at DU is that FEMA...well, I'll let him/her explain it:

How did they correctly predict that WTC-7 was going to fall hours before it fell when FEMA's experts couldn't remotely explain why WTC-7 fell months later, concluding that even the best explanation they could devise for its collapse was improbable?

I have pointed this sad person to the actual statement made by FEMA, and made sure that the word "specifics" was highlighted. I have explained that Nigro made a judgment call based on very clear points (I've even quoted Nigro's letter in full) that the building was dangerous.

But for some reason, since FEMA couldn't explain the collapse sequence, the firefighters could not have known that the building was in danger of collapsing.

 

[Gravy]

That's like a pilot radioing, "Mayday! Engines on fire...controls not responding...going down!" and a conspiracist blaming the crash on the pilot because the investigators couldn't find the exact cause of the malfunctions.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't think that matters at all. It's clear that several individuals and groups of firefighters were involved in assessing the building's condition. If someone in the OEM (such as the engineer who warned about the collapse of WTC 1) made the same assessment, then that's more evidence that the collapse was expected, not less.

Conspiracy liars can't seem to grasp this concept. Nor can they grasp the concept that Nigro made the most important decision, for the right reasons, based on his judgment and that of the experts below him.

What the troofers cannot get their minds around, because of course they can see everything, being big-picture guys, is that the senior officials get reports from everybody around.
These describe conditions that THEY see, from their viewpoint. They are the blind men, describing the elephant.
The Senior level guys see a lot more. They know the guy describing the elephant as a rope are in one location, and the guy describing it as a snake is 15 feet away from the first guy--and being of moderate intellegence can say "Aha! one guy is at the tail the other at the head!" While this doesn't give a good description of what is in between, other reports fill in the gaps, until a picture of the true situation emerges.
The grunt often is unable to see the forest because all those tree limbs keep slapping him in the face.
There are actually people who are good at putting the reports together to become a coherent picture. These folks gravitate to leadership positions.*




*so do incompetents, but there are, in any successful organization, enough of the good ones to at least keep things going...

 

[T.A.M.]

Gravy;

I agree that from the rational perspective, the "who" wrt assessment of building stability (or lack there of) and subsequent prediction of impending collapse, is not overly important.

My point, as I think you gathered, was to point out that to the truther mind set (figuring someone was pushing the "impending collapse" because the were behind it), the "who" is paramount to their line of thinking, and hence the reason THEY are making a big deal over it.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's the million dollar question. There are quotes in the oral histories that the OEM passed on the word.

Good lord, the monsters. You'd think the OEM was trying to manage an emergency or something.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy;

I agree that from the rational perspective, the "who" wrt assessment of building stability (or lack there of) and subsequent prediction of impending collapse, is not overly important.

My point, as I think you gathered, was to point out that to the truther mind set (figuring someone was pushing the "impending collapse" because the were behind it), the "who" is paramount to their line of thinking, and hence the reason THEY are making a big deal over it.

TAM

Incorrect, as far as my perspective is concerned. I can't speak for the ignominious "truthers".

The point is that the firefighters more often than not did not come up with this conclusion on their own. The word was passed down from the higher ups, thus disputing the imminency of the collapse.

If this subtle but important difference is not recognized, trust me, I won't harp on it. I've tried about six ways to explain it so far.

 

[Pardalis]

I've tried about six ways to spin it so far.

fixed.

BTW Red, did any of the firement report anything about explosives being set in the building?

 

[RedIbis]

fixed.

That's about as creative as the laughing dog.