Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[triforcharity]

That's like me asking you to prove that "no one suggested it."

I put the word "maybe" in front of my statement because I was speaking hypothetically, which is what you were doing.

You might not think so, but you weren't doing anything but speculating.

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

Well, yes, if it hadn't been for the fact that 11 Ladders and 18 Engines were destroyed, and their equipment (Wye's, thousands of feet of hoses, nozzles, and pickups) that would be needed for a large relay operation like that, yeah, FDNY could have fought the fire.

Not to mention the fact that fireboats can only flow so much water. Sure, they could get the water there, but not much higher. Pumps would not have been able to get the water higer than about 40' or so.

That doesn't even take into account that there were people dying in the pile, and water was needed for that more than it was needed for anything else.

 

[BigAl]

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

You don't know what things were like after the two towers collapsed, do you?

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304 makes reference to the difficulties involved with using that water.

It doesn't mention that triage was involved. The limited water that was available had to be directed to rescue workers and at buildings that were probably going to survive. WTC7 was not one of those buildings.

I think NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 mentions that the standpipe system in WTC7 was probably damaged, That could be a show-stopper if water and pumpers were to magically appear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpipe_(firefighting)

 

[alienentity]

And yet there's a rather huge body of water just a few hundred yards from WTC 7.

Not sure why you feel inclined to venture into such POV, esp. when you've obviously been familiar with the subject for a long time.

It comes across, as you continue to persist, that you're criticizing FDNY, that you're implying some kind of negligence on their part - after all, it was FDNY that was responsible for dealing with the fires.

I suggest you withdraw from this angle of attack, as it makes you look rather ugly and callous. I don't think FDNY deserves to be regarded this way, especially if it is just for some kind of personal entertainment on your part.

 

[alienentity]

Well, yes, if it hadn't been for the fact that 11 Ladders and 18 Engines were destroyed, and their equipment (Wye's, thousands of feet of hoses, nozzles, and pickups) that would be needed for a large relay operation like that, yeah, FDNY could have fought the fire.

Not to mention the fact that fireboats can only flow so much water. Sure, they could get the water there, but not much higher. Pumps would not have been able to get the water higer than about 40' or so.

That doesn't even take into account that there were people dying in the pile, and water was needed for that more than it was needed for anything else.

It has also been well documented that the condition of WTC 7 was considered unsafe; that there were very extensive and uncontrolled fires burning, and given the loss of some 343 FDNY firefighters and paramedics earlier that day in the tower collapses, reasonable persons accept that firefighting efforts should be abandoned.

Instead of accepting that first responders and their commanders acted responsibly, courageously and honourably on 9/11, self-proclaimed 'Truthers' instead infer and insinuate that these men and women knowingly participated in a conspiracy against America.

For that reason I believe 'Truthers' are a pretty low and degenerate cult. I wish it were not so, but I guess as long as there are going to be Neo-Nazis, there will also be 9/11 Truthers accusing (in a sneaky and veiled way) the heros of 9/11 of mass-murder.

 

[ergo]

For that reason I believe 'Truthers' are a pretty low and degenerate cult. I wish it were not so, but I guess as long as there are going to be Neo-Nazis, there will also be 9/11 Truthers accusing (in a sneaky and veiled way) the heros of 9/11 of mass-murder.

This is the grade of rhetoric that so-called "debunkers", who never actually debunk anything, stoop to when they've run out of their idiotic arguments.

 

[BigAl]

This is the grade of rhetoric that so-called "debunkers", who never actually debunk anything, stoop to when they've run out of their idiotic arguments.

When everyone has stopped listening, start accusing them of anti-semitism.

Oh, the irony. Listen for a change and respond to to this.

40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. You can find their names and full-text transcripts via the links, below. 40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
31 firemen mention the probability of collapse​

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGds_AjhkwP4V4RW9zTNH4GK3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackage...m/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

 

[A W Smith]

Dopey lying smarmy dirty bird. burpin and chirpin and eating dirty worms

That's like me asking you to prove that "no one suggested it."

I put the word "maybe" in front of my statement because I was speaking hypothetically, which is what you were doing.

You might not think so, but you weren't doing anything but speculating.

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

And what was so *********** important about building seven that they had to pump Hudson river water three blocks over and forty seven stories up? Your "smoking gun" was a property loss, nothing more. it was a vacant fatally damaged building which would have been deconstructed anyhow. You jackasses aren't even amusing anymore, as your profound ignorance has become snarky and deliberate.

 

[ergo]

Big Al, I've already shown that several testimonies from wtc7lies are not supported by the visual evidence. We know that the north face was not engulfed in flames before it collapsed. I don't need to go through more of these. If you want to, go right ahead.

Answer the question: If these other testimonials speak of an inferno, why didn't NIST use them in its report? Answer the question, or drop the subject.

 

[BigAl]

And what was so *********** important about building seven that they had to pump Hudson river water three blocks over and forty seven stories up? Your "smoking gun" was a property loss, nothing more. it was a vacant fatally damaged building which would have been deconstructed anyhow. You jackasses aren't even amusing anymore, as your profound ignorance has become snarky and deliberate.

What he said!

 

[triforcharity]

Big Al, I've already shown that several testimonies from wtc7lies are not supported by the visual evidence. We know that the north face was not engulfed in flames before it collapsed. I don't need to go through more of these. If you want to, go right ahead.

Answer the question: If these other testimonials speak of an inferno, why didn't NIST use them in its report? Answer the question, or drop the subject.

Smoke pouring from every floor of 7WTC would indicate that many, if not all, floors contained fire of some kind.

From a distance, it would certainly appear fully engulfed.

BTW, fully engulfed doesn't always mean what you think it does.

 

[A W Smith]

Big Al, I've already shown that several testimonies from wtc7lies are not supported by the visual evidence. We know that the north face was not engulfed in flames before it collapsed. I don't need to go through more of these. If you want to, go right ahead.

Answer the question: If these other testimonials speak of an inferno, why didn't NIST use them in its report? Answer the question, or drop the subject.

The north face didn't need to be "engulfed in flames". Where the fires were caused the core to fail first. Which pulled down the north face.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6447437&postcount=604

 

[DGM]

Answer the question: If these other testimonials speak of an inferno, why didn't NIST use them in its report? Answer the question, or drop the subject.

Because NIST unlike "truthers" knows that human testimony and memory is prone to errors.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Big Al, I've already shown that several testimonies from wtc7lies are not supported by the visual evidence. We know that the north face was not engulfed in flames before it collapsed. I don't need to go through more of these. If you want to, go right ahead.

Answer the question: If these other testimonials speak of an inferno, why didn't NIST use them in its report? Answer the question, or drop the subject.

Actually you're wrong, WTC7lies are supported by witness testimony. You just can't help being proved wrong can you?

What "inferno"? If you're suggesting that WTC7 was "fully engulfed" then you better have some pictures of it being fully engulfed in fire.

Answer the question, or drop the subject.

Typical!

 

[ergo]

Because NIST unlike "truthers" knows that human testimony and memory is prone to errors.

So they include some testimony, gathered almost a year after the event? But not testimony that would actually support the fire theory? Why?

 

[BigAl]

Big Al, I've already shown that several testimonies from wtc7lies are not supported by the visual evidence.

Even if your ill-informed assessment of the "visual evidence" we have is correct, the fires made up a small part of the reasons why the people that were eyewitnesses, FDNY, declared WTC7 a complete loss and stood back and watched it burn.

The information they had and the reasons for the decision are in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So they include some testimony, gathered almost a year after the event? But not testimony that would actually support the fire theory? Why?

Ergo, fire caused the collapse of WTC7. Deal with it!

BTW: I am a firefighter so whatever you say is hearsay & rubbish!

 

[BigAl]

So they include some testimony, gathered almost a year after the event? But not testimony that would actually support the fire theory? Why?

40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. You can find their names and full-text transcripts via the links, below. 40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
31 firemen mention probable collapse​

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGds_AjhkwP4V4RW9zTNH4GK3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackage...m/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

 

[ergo]

The information they had and the reasons for the decision are in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

You don't know how to answer my question? You don't understand my question? You don't want to answer my question?

 

[beachnut]

... what was so ... important about building seven ... profound ignorance has become snarky and deliberate.

911 truth is the personification of failure.

WTC 7 was not going to be used again, and the same goes for many building on 911.

Why do 911 truth delusions stop with 1, 2, and 7? What about 4, 5, 6, and other buildings? These guys are stuck on 7 which was not a target except for paranoid nuts in 911 truth. Lucky skeptical critical thinkers that join JREF forums are not mindless drones spewing WTC 7 nonsense.

 

[DGM]

So they include some testimony, gathered almost a year after the event? But not testimony that would actually support the fire theory? Why?

Because it could be confirmed by other sources (video).