Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Ragnarok]

he fails to realize that firefighting is about saving lives not saving structures
and if a structure is evacuated and in danger of collapse
fire departments will opt for self preservation and set up a collapse zone
just like WTC7 (cause risking lives for an empty building is pretty stupid)

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

 

[BigAl]

Neither do large explosions, apparently. Fires seem to do a good enough job on their own.

Yup. Every fireman knows that. Steel buildings with minimal fireproofing and lack of water for firefighting will collapse if they don't burn out first.

There were no large explosions at WTC unless you count planes hitting buildings and chunks of buildings hitting the ground.

 

[BigAl]

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

The institutional experience of FDNY is that steel buildings can and do collapse in a fire.

Firemen train for the dangers of collapse in steel buildings. Questions about steel expansion in fires have been on the officer's test reportedly for decades.

Source: Lieutenant' s test
http://snurl.com/j5434 [books_google_com]

 

[Ragnarok]

Rubbish, most people prior to 911 had never heard of it.

Doesn't mean it was any less important.

 

[Ragnarok]

The institutional experience of FDNY is that steel buildings can and do collapse in a fire.

Firemen train for the dangers of collapse in steel buildings. Questions about steel expansion in fires have been on the officer's test reportedly for decades.

Source: Lieutenant' s test
http://snurl.com/j5434 [books_google_com]

And as has been mentioned by many on here, the events of 9/11 were nothing like anything that had occurred before, so what relevance would their previous experience have had?

 

[BigAl]

And as has been mentioned by many on here, the events of 9/11 were nothing like anything that had occurred before, so what relevance would their previous experience have had?

They were steel buildings on fire and without effective firefighting. Every fireman knew they were subject to collapse. Listen to the people that were there.

Here's another authoritative quote for you to ignore:

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Page 310, Report From Ground Zero;
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
​

And another one

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

​

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

One Meridian Plaza was evacuated by firefighters because there were fears that the structure was on the point of collapse. Should they have continued to fight the fire because there wasn't a convenient example of such a collapse to refer to as precedent, or are you prepared to concede that they could have thought of their own safety that day in a way you seem to think they shouldn't have on 9/11?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Arguments from simple incredulity are boring, Ragnarok.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And as has been mentioned by many on here, the events of 9/11 were nothing like anything that had occurred before, so what relevance would their previous experience have had?

You seem to be arguing both sides here. You're saying that they shouldn't have expected a collapse based on past experience because there was no past experience of collapse of steel buildings due to fire; you're also saying that they shouldn't have expected a collapse based on past experience, despite past experience of steel buildings collapsing, because 9/11 was so unusual. You're therefore simultaneously claiming that they both should and shouldn't have been guided by past experience. This sort of internal contradiction is a classic hallmark of cognitive dissonance. Until you at least consider the possibility that the collapse of WTC7 might have been expected from the state of that building alone, you'll never come up with a line of argument that makes sense.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Doesn't mean it was any less important.

What, is that the same speculation as the Pentagon having the most secure airspace in the US?

Junk in other words.

 

[funk de fino]

And as has been mentioned by many on here, the events of 9/11 were nothing like anything that had occurred before, so what relevance would their previous experience have had?

Are you saying steel buildings have never collapsed from fire before?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Neither do large explosions, apparently. Fires seem to do a good enough job on their own.

That happens to be Arup's/University of Edinburgh's position. They posit that the size of the fires alone, even in the absence of any impact damage let alone fireproofing dislodgement, could result in a collapse.

NIST, of course, says that impact damage as well as dislodgement of fireproofing material was necessary.

But all of that is a digression. The bottom line is that there is agreement on the fact that fires exacerbate integrity issues in an impact damaged structure, and that such issues can indeed lead to a progressive collapse. In no discussion by reasonable professionals in the field has the need for explosives ever been raised.

 

[TruthersLie]

They barely registered the planes explosions; why would they pick up smaller explosions within the towers?

********.

The seismic data CLEARLY shows the impacts of the aircraft. They weren't "barely registered."

Tom Irvine, “The World Trade Center Disaster: A Shock and Vibration
Perspective,” online whitepaper, November 2001. Accessible online at
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf.

From page 5, the first impact was a .9 on the ricther scale and it lasted for 12 seconds, and the second impact was a .7 which lasted 6 seconds. That is NOT "barely registered."

if you look at page 6 you can CLEARLY see the impacts on the seismograph.

If you look at page 8 you can CLEARLY see just how massive the impacts were.

So please drop this strawman argument. If you look at the timeline it does look small, if you examine EACH EVENT in depth you see it is FULLY documented.

According to the seismic experts and the CD experts a blast of just 5 lbs of high explosive would have registered on the seismic records.
WHERE ARE THEY?

 

[Crazytimes]

Ummm...most organizations with computer systems do this on a regular basis. They did before 9/11, and they continue to do it today. It's not wise to trust the future of the entire organization on the assumption that disaster will never strike the building that holds the data.

Our company backs up everything nightly. They are taken from our server room and each of the two owners brings a copy home.

This is such a stupid argument that it is laughable. Can you ever imagine the government in this day and age only having all their information on paper in a file drawer ? Totally ridiculous.

 

[TruthersLie]

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

Then you are a complete and utter moron.

There are questions on the firemans test about steel buildings.

There is video record of the firemen responding to the towers saying these buildings will come down.

They only announced at NOON that wtc7 was going to collapse and were clearing the area out. You know 5 HOURS BEFORE it collapsed.

 

[johnny karate]

Another Truther trying to tell us what firefighters were thinking, while ignoring what those firefighters actually said?

Yawn.

Ragnarok, if you're so curious about what firefighters were thinking on 9/11, why don't you contact the FDNY and ask them?

 

[Justin39640]

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

not really
again the building was evacuated very early on
so it was empty (except for the 2 who got out later)
and very early on the building was leaning and the bulge was developing (all of which was reported on 1010WINS and other news outlets hours before the collapse)

firefighters are professionals
they know the dangers of the job
which includes the fact that collapses (in any type of construction) are very possible

 

[A W Smith]

And nothing to do with the fact they had just seen two of the biggest buildings in America collapse already. If that hadn't happened and a bomb had caused the structural damage and fires in WTC7, I'm sure the FDNY would have had no qualms about continuing to battle the blaze with whatever resources they had, and would never have expected the building to collapse in a lifetime.

after one and two, there were many other buildings damaged/on fire that day. Yet only seven was expected to collapse

They barely registered the planes explosions; why would they pick up smaller explosions within the towers?

Yet the planes didn't immediately cause the buildings to collapse. The fireballs from the planes were fuel/air explosions. And had little in common with shape charges or other controlled demolition devices which would need to be directly affixed to the structural steel members. Which were themselves connected to the bedrock below.

An engineer from WTC7 also stated that the building was going to collapse due to the fires.

Based on what previous experience and specialist knowledge?

Are you implying he was able to look at the blueprints and say "Hey, if that goes, the lot is coming down!"?

did you miss the "engineer" part in funk de fino's quote? are you that stupid? no need to answer that. we all already know.

Well, the fact it was one of the most important buildings in the US, you'd expect every effort to save its contents, if not its structure. Is the amount of data saved or recovered of no interest to anybody, regardless of it's relevance on the events of the day?

For instance, was all the data held on computers transferred to a safer environment after the 2nd plane hit?

ps. Who was in WTC7 when the attacks took place, and who oversaw everyone leaving the building?

Give us a precedent where firefighters enter burning buildings to rescue data or paper. If building seven were a 47 story burning cube of currency and data. NO ONE would enter it if there were no lives to be saved. This is why they have INSURANCE

You are carefully avoiding my suggestion that the main reason any firefighter would think the building would collapse, is because of their experience earlier that day, and nothing to do with any training or prior experience they had.

One Meridian plaza ring a bell? Did you ignore the fact that they put a transit on the building and saw displacement? Does this fireman say anything about one and two as the reasons they cant or wont fight the fires of building seven?

 

[beachnut]

Is this consistent with a CD?

Firefighter Kenneth Rogers: “[T]here was an explosion in the South Tower… I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” [City of New York, 12/10/2001]

Yes each floor failed; gravity did it. Darn is gravity deliberate? Can you figure out 911 without inserting delusions?

RedIbis has to answer is gravity deliberate?
Did the terrorists do it on purpose?
Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer I cheated and asked the chief structural engineer; and he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense)

Where is your Pulitzer Prize with this ground breaking news that gravity is deliberate and the terrorists did it on purpose? There ain't no prize for apologizing poorly for terrorists as you are doing; really is this the best you can do after 7 years of google research?

 

[The Platypus]

Our company backs up everything nightly. They are taken from our server room and each of the two owners brings a copy home.

This is such a stupid argument that it is laughable. Can you ever imagine the government in this day and age only having all their information on paper in a file drawer ? Totally ridiculous.

This is exactly what i was going to say.

Most if not all of the valuable data would have been backed up twice, with one of the backups stored in a 2nd location, incase of such a situation as a fire. This is a standard operating procedure where data is important.