• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

"Posters" in this case, meaning you. In this part of the discussion you brought up the firefighters. Why? So you could come back with your OEM remark? Clever game you are playing!
 
Bell said:
"Posters" in this case, meaning you. In this part of the discussion you brought up the firefighters. Why? So you could come back with your OEM remark? Clever game you are playing!
Click to expand...

Scroll back. I was responding to Tri.
 
Oystein said:
sheeplesnshills said:
This fails to acknowledge the very reason why WTC7 is seen as the smoking gun in the first place: That CTers can't imagine that a single-pont failure could trigger a collapse, let alone the CD-like global and near-simultaneous collapse that we all know from videos.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but you know its only a matter of time that one will concede the single point of failure argument and then say that since there was only a single point failure possible then thats the one that was pre-rigged! And as we know since we can't prove that one column was not rigged that absolutely proves it was!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
And what percentage of those ffs said that they were told the bldg would collapse? I know you won't answer this with sincerity since it would destroy your premise.
Click to expand...

Why would that be of any importance?:confused: They were ordered to pull back and would obey those orders. How many of them knew the reason why they were ordered back is irrelevant though I suspect most did or quickly found out (they would have wanted to know why because their friends and colleagues were buried in the two collapsed towers and they would have been very keen on trying to find survivors (as indeed they later did just that)).
 
RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

please show us where this was proved
 
Dave Rogers said:
What an extraordinarily stupid piece of irony. Do you understand what foremen(sic) actually do? Since part of their job is to determine whether a fire can safely be fought, assessing whether a burning building is likely to collapse is a much more crucial skill than visual metallurgical analysis.
Click to expand...

Building collapses are one of the biggest dangers to firemen and after the two towers came down it would have been a very real possibility in their minds.

Hundreds of firemen were already dead so they would have taken little chance at all of losing more and after the two towers came down who cared about losing WTC7 other than perhaps Silverstein?
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

You saying it over and over does not constitute proof.
 
RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

Your point?

OEM was qualified to make that statement.

Why do you claim that OEM and the firemen are mutually exclusive? Many people came to the same conclusion that day.

So what?

They were all correct.
 
tsig said:
OK, boiling water.:o

ETA: This is why I try to avoid analogies.
Click to expand...

The earth is molten in the middle yet the ground I stand on is not. Liquid would tend to flow down and form puddles where if it is insulated well enough (by the debris above, it may well remain liquid for a long time without radiating enough heat to melt everything above it. Remember there was a lot of non melting insulating material in the pile, concrete, drywall, fireproofing etc
 
DGM said:
"Office of Emergency Management"

It was located (despite local controversy) at WTC 7.
Click to expand...

I think the name itself indicates that they would get advice from all sides and make decisions. Please show that they were not told by NYFD that the building was not damaged, not on fire, not failing etc. Management act on advice from experts. Who else would they have asked about a fire and who can argue they made the wrong decision? :)
 
RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

Oh cripes, I had totally forgotten this stupid argument of Red's!

It is part of his FDNY people were used by unnamed evil beings behind the OEM!

Except the one's who using the surveyors' transit on the building, huh champ?
 
RedIbis said:
Are all firemen foremen? No, of course not. And it wasn't these foremen who came to this conclusion. It was the OEM and you know that.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.
Click to expand...

WRONG

From Firehouse Magazine April 2002 - Hayden interview​

"... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro​
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

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.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
 
RedIbis said:
Are all firemen foremen? No, of course not. And it wasn't these foremen who came to this conclusion. It was the OEM and you know that.
Click to expand...

So what? How does the fact that OEM was one of the groups that called it right change the fact that fire and the lack of firefighting made the collapse trivially predictable.

At least in NYC, all firemen are trained in the risks of structural collapse in fires in steel structures for their own protection.
 
BigAl said:
So what? How does the fact that OEM was one of the groups that called it right change the fact that fire and the lack of firefighting made the collapse trivially predictable.

At least in NYC, all firemen are trained in the risks of structural collapse in fires in steel structures for their own protection.
Click to expand...

Everyone's been down this road before. It's an attempt by conspiracy peddlers to say that the firefighters were merely told by some superior that the building would collapse, thus getting around the nasty little fact that most truther claims require either unconscionable ignorance or deliberate collaboration on the firefighters part. This way, they can wave away a whole swath of rebuttals at once by taking the firefighters judgemment of the building's condition out of the argument.
 
I'm still confused. When this thread started, the original source, tfk, stated that Mr. Johnson graduated from engineering school only 3 years ago. Yet in the video he posted, he states to the audience that he has "worked on hundreds of structure". Let's suppose he means a 100 buildings and let's suppose he's been 'working on buildings' since he started university 7 or 8 years ago. Does that mean he works on a different building every week?

Once again, I'm not an engineer, but I do have very close friends who are. They're in their 50s and have been working for decades. I doubt they could reasonably claim the same level of experience. In the comments attached to his video, there is a claim that Mr. Johnson is a welding inspector and not an engineer. While I have no idea if this is true, he does claim in his introduction to be a "special inspector". Certainly this would explain what he means by "worked on".

Am I confused about this?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom