My point was to illustrate that Roundhead, while claiming to admire the bravery of the FDNY assumes that these brave men could be ordered to be cowardly without complaint.
So far he has produced no FF quote that backs his contention that the fires in WTC 7 could have been fought because they had ample water, equipment and manpower to do so much less show a consensus (or even a minority opinion in a significant number of FF's) among FF's that such was the case.
What does RH do instead?
He states, on his own expertise, that there was sufficient water, assumes that trucks from 100 miles away could and would be brought in to lower Manhattan, claims that the gov't ordered WTC 7 to be left alone to burn until the CD could be accomplished, but names only Larry Silverstein as the supposed issuer of this order. Silverstein who no NYFD member would recognize as having the authority to tell them to abandon a building that could be saved.
If the above drivel you posted is supposed to represent what your interpretation of my thoughts are, you should seriously consider bringing a lawsuit upon your lobotomy surgeon. My thought is that you will win in an open and shut case.
Regarding one quick little point...7 burned for what, 8 hours, correct. Why would it not make sense that firetrucks 100 miles away, and full of water, couldnt, at 50mph, get there in roughly 2 hours, if the call was made. Those closer than 100 miles obviously sooner.
I think the order was given by somebody high up, maybe Gulianni, who knows, to make the decision to leave 7 alone, when it was still many hours away from coming down.
I know where i live, if a big house fire erupts, assets are called in from as far away as it takes to get the fire put out.
My opinion is somebody high up on the food chain intentionally didnt bring all assets to bear that could have made a difference, and instead allowed it to burn and cordoned it off.
Events shortly after 5 that afternoon prove my thesis, it was blown up.
This is politics, and has zero to do with firefighters on the ground.
I think we can all agree that these brave guys testimony regarding 9/11 was hidden/swept under the carpet/marginalized, only given the light of day because of intense pressure, and most everybody at Jref is fine with all of that.
You think they're brave guys? Really? Please explain how you can claim firefighters are afraid to come forward to tell the truth about the death of 343 of their brethren, and then turn around and characterize them as "brave".
Your back-pedaling is pathetic. At least we have your comments earlier in this thread to forever immortalize your contempt and lack of respect for the FDNY.
Why would it not make sense that firetrucks 100 miles away, and full of water, couldnt, at 50mph, get there in roughly 2 hours, if the call was made. Those closer than 100 miles obviously sooner.
How much water does a fire truck hold? How high can the pump on a fire truck raise water? What firefighters would want to go into such a compromised building when no lives were at stake? How would the fire trucks get through the rubble of WTC 1 and 2 to get close to WTC 7?
You would think these things through if you were a thinking man, rather than someone who can't see evidence of rivets on a chunk of fuselage full of rivet holes and rivets.
My point was to illustrate that Roundhead, while claiming to admire the bravery of the FDNY assumes that these brave men could be ordered to be cowardly without complaint.
My opinion is somebody high up on the food chain intentionally didnt bring all assets to bear that could have made a difference, and instead allowed it to burn and cordoned it off.
Is it also your opinion that this was the same "someone" who coerced the firefighters into compliance and silence, and the firefighters, cowards that you believe them to be, readily agreed out of fear?
Regarding one quick little point...7 burned for what, 8 hours, correct. Why would it not make sense that firetrucks 100 miles away, and full of water, couldnt, at 50mph, get there in roughly 2 hours, if the call was made. Those closer than 100 miles obviously sooner.
A typical fire tanker truck carries about 1000 gallons of water. A single large hose stream is generally figured to be capable of applying 250 gallons per minute. Do the math.
A typical fire tanker truck carries about 1000 gallons of water. A single large hose stream is generally figured to be capable of applying 250 gallons per minute. Do the math.
If the above drivel you posted is supposed to represent what your interpretation of my thoughts are, you should seriously consider bringing a lawsuit upon your lobotomy surgeon. My thought is that you will win in an open and shut case.
Did you or did you not state that WTC 7 could have been saved?
Does this not imply then that you feel that in your expert opinion, there was sufficient water, equipment and personell at the site and that FF's on the scene would be particularily peeved, to say the least, that they were being pulled away from a bulding they could save?
So I ask again for a quote from a FF on the scene who states in the suppressed until recently testimony, that there was sufficient water to fight the fires or that the building fires could have been fought?
I ask again what, in that recently released testimony, illustrates that the fires could have been fought and that FF's believe that the building was demolished using controlled demolition? Please note that I do not ask for testimony concerning the quality of the air after the fact of all the structures having fallen.
Regarding one quick little point...7 burned for what, 8 hours, correct. Why would it not make sense that firetrucks 100 miles away, and full of water, couldnt, at 50mph, get there in roughly 2 hours, if the call was made. Those closer than 100 miles obviously sooner.
Yes baldy put one could call in trucks from that distance (100 miles). Now perhaps you'd like to speculate as to what conditions would apply to lower Manhattan that would preclude this.
I think the order was given by somebody high up, maybe Gulianni, who knows, to make the decision to leave 7 alone, when it was still many hours away from coming down.
Nope, only from areas that can be assured that their equipment can get back to their own area in time if needed.
My opinion is somebody high up on the food chain intentionally didnt bring all assets to bear that could have made a difference, and instead allowed it to burn and cordoned it off.
Then where is the testimony from the professionals to back your contention that political interference caused them to abandon a fire fighting effort in a building that officially collapsed due to that fire, causing millions of dollars more in damage to adjacent buildings?
No where, it does not exist and thus your "thesis" is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky, pure conjecture.
I would observe that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has previously made the claim that that the destruction of 7 WTC -- presumably due to the abandonment of fire fighting efforts -- was unnecessary because sufficient water had actually been available to support the fire fighting effort. In fact, I don't recall any disputes in the threads about the justification for the abandonment of the effort. It was clearly accepted that FDNY was behaving as rationally as it could given the huge loss of personnel and equipment, lack of resources, and shock to their collective psyche.
Heh where's your question of "what do comets have to do with WTC 7"? I expected better from you but that was clearly asking of too much. You missed my point entirely, good job.
Your entire argument for controlled demolition is based on no prior example of total collapse of a steel structure. Steel is not an almighty impregnable material. You believe that steel is so resistant to fire that only human intervention is possible. Your entire argument is based on ignorance, you apparently know very little about structural materials and design. You obviously either do not know or do not care for the way thermal variations affect all kinds of materials. You've already demonstrated this by trying to use concrete core structures to justify why a steel structure should not have collapsed, and the best part is... what structural steel members that example had all failed from fire.
And yes, i dont believe the govt about 9/11. It obviously makes me a whole lot smarter than most on this site. Why, you say, because you parrots slurp up this fantasy, i dont.
Excuse me? Your arguments thus far have been little more than parroting Griffin and Jone's same arguments. The truth movement parrots the same arguments for several years. They judge everything off of false credibility premises, they intentionally downplay witness accounts that do not fit their arguments, they quote mine material and contort it to fit their agenda. Your stereotyping of 'debunkers' is utterly hilarious and incredibly ironic. All of those arguments come straight from Jones and Griffin. Sadly for you I decided the truth movement was a deceitful group when I found out that they not only quote mined witnesses, but they made absurd arguments that in the architecture and engineering field are flat out ludicrous. The government reports had no bearing in my initial conclusion... how unfortunate.
1. Steel that could well have provided enough information to draw a conclusion that is honest and forthright was removed from the site, which itself borders on criminal behavior, if in fact it isnt . This one little detail makes the investigation a farce.
You're calling that a crime scene? The structure was only damaged after WTC 1 fell onto the south facade of the structure taking out a solid chunk of the south face, and subsequently set ablaze by the debris. It was caught in the middle of a separate event. By this logic WTC 3,4,5,6, and other nearby structuures should have been treated in the manner of a crime scene.
Why test for something that lacks credibility? Between the utter butchering of similes used by witness, quote mining, and the inability for truth movement leaders to provide actual building examples that are of the same, material, structural system, size, and type of damage sustained at initiation I've got a difficult time finding any credibility in your argument. I actually believe the government used 911 as precendence for later implimentations of domestic and foreign policy after the fact, however, the controlled demolition argument takes BS to a whole new level of idiocy. Do not get me started on that.
Before or after the collapse? Sorry, for my lack of familiarity with this subject in the truth movement. If you point me to the relevant article I will read it and respond with my interpretation. Fair is fair...
This already tells me that you didn't even bother to watch the videos of the penthouse collapsing into the interior 8 seconds prior to the exterior facades collapsing. The entire collapse from start to finish was anywhere between 15-18 seconds.
As for witness reports that mentioned concern for the building's stability, you clearly either have not read the accounts at all, have not read the witness statements properly (AKA you misunderstood them or took them out of context), or you know full well what the witness accounts gave and parrot the CT lies anyway. I'll leave the distinction up to you.
Symmetrical collapse? Better tell that to the owners of the verizon building and 30 West Broadway's Fitterman Hall. Both structures were heavily damaged due to WTC 7's collapse. There are no sequential explosions earmarking a CD seconds prior to the collapse either. The failure was in an interior column and initiated the collapse near the bottom. The behavior is clearly going to be far different than anything seen in the twin towers.
Your apparent bias for appearance suggests your argument, like Jones', like Griffin's, like everyone elses' in the truth movement is based on ignorance.
Uh... aside from a few video angles taken at ground level from the north side of the structure showing an apparent 'look-alike' to a controlled demolition, and that the collapse was initiated from the structural components failing, there are no dimilarities. There are no 'squibs', there are no loud bangs, firefighters hear noises well before the collapse even initiated, etc. All are lacking and the only thing you and Jones can think of is thermite? They should have prepared Lower Manhattan for the fourth of July.
These two contradict each other. You on one hand claim that they did not even bother to look into blast scenarios and thermite, Yet on the other hand, without any supporting details I might add to enhance your contention, you use the very analysis they ran to calculate a hypothetical amount that would have been required for the columns. Wouldn't it be more productive to give us "parrots" supporting details to the contrary where NIST is apparently lacking? Have you read any of the WTC 7 report, and no I don't just mean the one page FAQ section they posted, I mean, have you started reading the actual document to point out specific flaws in their models? I'd like to here your thoughts after putting some effort into reading it.
You also seem to forget this little gem from their WTC7 FAQ:
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes.
Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
Remember your secret OPS are trying to rig an occupied building. Yet they have to access oll the columns, prepare the placement of all those charges or thermite, without getting noticed. For one, with the preparations required for explosives accessing the columns I'd say noxious gases would draft some definite unwanted attention. For the rest this issue has always been one of speculation on the part of truthers and never anything of substance. Could it be that the claim you all set forth lacks credibility?
Actually about the only thing you have gotten right in regards to WTC 7, (And NIST too has acknowledged it) is that WTC 7 is the only known steel structure to collapse from fire. Yet you missed my opening point in my last response to you and continue with this canard. You continue to use concrete structures to justify why a steel structure should not have collapsed from fire. When you DO use a steel structure as an example you never pay attention to the construction methods applied to them. How am I supposed to recognize your credibility if you are incapable of giving me a reasonable example that shows me why the steel should not have failed?
throw out any other events as cause that have in fact happened, and provide no data or tests results on how they came to dismiss these other possibilities.
Be serious with me... How many examples exist where thermite was ever used in a controlled demolition? Give me one?
Give me an example in which a building was slated for demolition that was set ablaze and left to burn for several hours unattended.
Give me one controlled demolition where the crew left of the of the buildings' contents inside of the building
And finally give me one example of in which a building was rigged while the building was occupied.
Can you do that? mAfterall you are arguing that NIST is "asserting" a never before observed "phenomenon" yet some of the applications and circumstance you propose for the installition and implementation of explosives and thermite are even worse off on the "never before seen" logic.
And then Sunder after stating, and i paraphrase that this is what we would expect would happen with this type of failure, answers a question"how would you know what to expect as it never has happened before" with some mumbo jumbo that a 2nd grader would laugh at.
And in fact it does answer your question. What do controlled demolitions have to do in order to successfully bring down a building? A controlled demolition must effectively destroy the structural supports so that gravity can do the rest. What happens when the structural members inside a building undergo failure while bearing a load against gravity forces, and what happens when the strain on other structural members is too much for them to carry additional gravity loads? In both cases they will collapse. The 'similarities' if you want to call it that, end there.
on the WTC7 NIST report. There is a truther stating a mistake:
Truther:
Page 49 of the NIST report estimates fuel loads of 32 kg/m^3. This is a volume measurement. Converting metric to imperial units, the NIST report states that this fuel load is 6.4 lb/ft^2. This is an area unit.
It clearly shows the estimated fuel loads and ALL estimates are given as area units. The erroneous 32 kg/m^3 has been correctly typed to be 32 kg/m^2 - an area unit. The floor of a building is measured by area, either m^2 or ft^2. NIST tried to estimate the amount of combustible material spread across the floors. They did not try to estimate the density of the combustible material.
32 Kilograms per cubic meter were converted from the International Systems of Units (Metric System) to Customary Units. (what we use here in the States) and yes that does equal 6.4 pounds per square feet.
I cant believe you would stoop so low as to state i EVER implied or stated there was any cowardice by ANYBODY involved with the fire dept.
Thats a bald faced lie. Grow up.
I have stated that the Govt covered up and tryed they're best to hide these fine peoples testimonies, because they dont fit, at all, with the official Govt lie.
If you are truly on the side of these fine people, you would be sceaming to have they're statements analysed and given weight, not ignored.
You cant have it both ways, Karate kid, dont sweep them under the carpet, like you and your fellow parrots do, then try and lie about my statetements supporting them.
Thankfully, lurkers can read this thread and see who really wants to have these fine people not diminished.
If you cared about these people, you would be concerned, like i am, why many of them were doing there jobs inside the buildings, and the buildings were destroyed intentionally, while they were still in them.
Sorry... he claims it is an editing error (As I asked anyone to please show me one)
His quote:
Page 49 of the NIST report estimates fuel loads of 32 kg/m^3. This is a volume measurement. Converting metric to imperial units, the NIST report states that this fuel load is 6.4 lb/ft^2. This is an area unit.
page 86 of the report. It clearly shows the estimated fuel loads and ALL estimates are given as area units. The erroneous 32 kg/m^3 has been correctly typed to be 32 kg/m^2 - an area unit. The floor of a building is measured by area, either m^2 or ft^2. NIST tried to estimate the amount of combustible material spread across the floors. They did not try to estimate the density of the combustible material.
I stated they had been threatened, and posted a quote that supports my contention.
We already know the testimonies were hidden from public view for years. We also know that, in spite of scores of witnesses who stated they heard explosions, and noted demolition like events, that NONE of these acounts were discussed or further investigated by any Govt investigatory body.That alone is grounds to suspect any official utterance on events of the day. Among hundreds of other reasons, of course.
The fact so many of these testimonies exist, and are left unaddressed at all, cant help but imply the Govt finds the testimonies critical of the official lie, and chose not to address them, because of that fact.
One cant help but conclude the Govt is far from forthcoming in the novel it contends is nonfiction
How parrots on here can stomach these facts and still stick to the official lie simply is beyond the sanity of anybody that cant rely on having been the victim of a botched lobotomy
Why dont you go to any firehouse in NYC and ask them if they are keeping silent because of threats to their pension? I know you won't because you will get knocked back on your ass.
Especially Unions. There was a small Union dustup here in Philly where some standards for sewer construction were being revised, possibly downward (actually, it was more the testing facility being toned down) and the union for the Water Department got wind of it from their employees and made one heck of a fuss.
Why is it important? Well, the fuss was started by some WD employees who were concerned about the standards. Why? Not really certain. Given that any lowering of the standards would happen in rebuilt sewers they were unlikely to see again in their working lifetime there was no immediate threat to them. Yet they went to their Union fast as all get up.
And these are Water Department employees, in a city smaller than NYC.
Yet they complained, about potential safety problems that would not be seen for at least a generation if at all.
Yet roundhead would have us believe that with a few laughable threats to a 'pension' manages to stop Firefighters from standing up for their brothers who were murdered. By his own statements, roundhead makes the FDNY workers far less brave than a bunch of Water Department workers in Philly.
Then he has the never to turn around and say he considers them brave and how dare we suggest otherwise?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
