Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[ergo]

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

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

from wtc7 lies, linked to by Dave Rogers:

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

 

[BigAl]

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

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. Nothing you have said so far makes the evidence and eyewitness reports told in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 go away.

 

[ergo]

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

So, show us the north face engulfed in flames, please.

This gets so tiresome.

 

[ergo]

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. Nothing you have said so far makes the evidence and eyewitness reports told in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 go away.

From your answer, I will consider the subject dropped. Another bedunker argument unsupported. As usual.

 

[DGM]

So, show us the north face engulfed in flames, please.

This gets so tiresome.

Yes it does. Where does NIST say it was "engulfed in flames"?

 

[BigAl]

So, show us the north face engulfed in flames, please.

Irrelevant.

Firemen that inspected WTC7 from the inside declared the building doomed.

 

[ergo]

Yes it does. Where does NIST say it was "engulfed in flames"?

It doesn't. That's my friggin point,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 0, 12.

 

[GlennB]

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 (as they explain in the report) used the most parsimonious interpretation of the visual evidence that they could. If flames were not visible on film through the windows they assumed no flaming fire in that area, for example.

That experienced, trained professionals such as firefighters might deduce there was fire out of sight beyond the windows or that it might have been reported but not recorded on camera was deemed not appropriate for the NIST study.

Meanwhile, the NW corner of WTC7, where smoke is belching from many floors ....

 

[BigAl]

From your answer, I will consider the subject dropped. Another bedunker argument unsupported. As usual.

Good. Your time would be better spent reading NCSTAR for the first time.

 

[alienentity]

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.

 

[DGM]

It doesn't. That's my friggin point,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed moderated content

So what is your frigging point? That NIST was right?

 

[GlennB]

It doesn't. That's my friggin point,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed moderated content

Ah. I should have saved my effort. You're aiming for 'suicide by mod'.

I suppose it's one way out of the hole you've dug. Then what? You'll bellyache elsewhere about how the JREF shills banned you?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It doesn't. That's my friggin point,

Edited by LashL: 

Removed moderated content

Breach of Rule 12 noted & post reported!

 

[ergo]

READING COMPREHENSION for BEE DUNKERS:

When you enter an argument, you should make some attempt to go back a few posts so you can be sure you're addressing what the argument is addressing.

Dave Rogers cited wtc7lies for the supposed testimonials about the raging fires. Read these, and then read my comments, and then read your own comments.

All of them, or just the ones you want to?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...ntsofwtc7fires

And lots more in the same vein. So, do you believe the reports of the firefighters now, or do you still think there were only a few small fires in WTC7?

As I already stated, I was referring to the testimonials included in the NIST report. Looking at the wtc7lies site you refer to, I do have some skepticism over some of those reports. Tell me what you think of this:

Quote:
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16)

Do you know where Washington Street is in lower Manhattan? And he would also have been looking at the north face of it, where there was no damage. Yet he says all 47 floors were on fire right before the building fell. Can you show me the photo or video evidence of this? Because I think most people would agree that the building was not engulfed in flames when it fell. Nor did the smoke issuing from it indicate a massive fire.

So is this an account you would believe? If so, why? ETA: and why would the building "shake like an earthquake hit it" first?

Many of the statements contradict each other:

"and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse..." (not supported by the visual evidence) ..."Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.".... "...Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time." .... "They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily...." ...."the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building."

And finally, the statements claiming that the building was completely engulfed in flames before it collapsed is simply not supported by the visual evidence, as we all know.

Even if they were true, can you tell us why NIST wouldn't have used those testimonials in their report, since they would certainly bolster the fire-only argument? Is it because they know everybody can see with their own eyes that the building was not engulfed in flames as it fell?

WTC7lies indeed.

 

[ergo]

Breach of Rule 12 noted & post reported!

Stop it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[alienentity]

So, show us the north face engulfed in flames, please.

This gets so tiresome.

Yes it does, so you should stop doing it - making strawman arguments, that is.

When the FDNY personnel talk about 'fully engulfed' they are not referring to the North face normally, but to the South face, which was, according to the video and still photos we have, almost fully engulfed in smoke.

But this huge volume of smoke prevents anyone, including NIST, to make an exact, forensic assessment of the location of fires - they give a very detailed analysis of the problem in their report.

However, FDNY personnel were not preparing a forensic analysis, they were giving at-the-moment practical assessments for the purpose of determining the condition of WTC 7, and first-hand observations in many cases.

I suppose you might fail to recognize these important differences, by accident. But I wager after I post this you will either evade it, dismiss it, but do anything but respond in an honorable and intelligent way.

I hope you can do the opposite and respond in an adult fashion.

 

[ergo]

Meanwhile, the NW corner of WTC7, where smoke is belching from many floors ....

Yet Dave Rogers cites wtc7lies:

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven,

from here he would have been viewing the north face

which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

You don't even understand your own arguments.

 

[Fly Poster]

In this thread Ergo has succsefully held the worst unsubstantiated postion, and argument I have seen in a long long time, and I have seen a few!

Welcome to my ignore list Ergo.

 

[DGM]

READING COMPREHENSION for BEE DUNKERS:

When you enter an argument, you should make some attempt to go back a few posts so you can be sure you're addressing what the argument is addressing.

Dave Rogers cited wtc7lies for the supposed testimonials about the raging fires. Read these, and then read my comments, and then read your own comments.

Talk about reading comprehension. Dave was talking about the fact that, you when you want to support small fires you quote firefighters but ignore the ones that say large. Is English not your native language?

 

[beachnut]

Yet Dave Rogers cites wtc7lies:

from here he would have been viewing the north face

You don't even understand your own arguments.

You can't do physics but you confirmed with witnesses WTC 7 came down due to fire. Good job.

You do bee-dunk yourself very effectively, it is your best skill on 911 issues.

... you are off topic again.