Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[triforcharity]

Source?

The article linked says that guns and ammunition were stored there. Do you think they just have 1 clip? Millions is speculation, but I can reasonably assume that it was more than 10,000

Wise call.

Yep, so, was fighting the fire in 6WTC, which was RIGHT NEXT TO the collapse areas of 1&2 WTC a priority or not?

Loose the attitude.

Lose the arguments from personal ignorance.

You don't know what the priorities were so unless you can provide an official source you and TFC are just giving your opinions.

No, we KNOW what the priorities were, considering that NO firefighting took place in 7WTC, and 6WTC's fires were fought.

Would you think that would make sense? Or do you want to continue to speculate by pulling random **** out of your ass?

Getting back to the point, NIST said:
Since the collapses of the WTC towers had damaged the water main, there was no secondary supply of water available (such as from the gravity-fed overhead tanks that supplied water to Floor 21 and above) to control those fires that eventually led to the building collapse. - NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Show us the complete math. From the Harvey all the way to the 21st floor of 7WTC.

I'll wait........(Don't forget the 1800' or so of hoselay from the Harvey to 7WTC, and another thing you need to account for is the problem of where to get enough hose from. Also, don't forget that you're not only fighting the fires in 7WTC, but also the rubble pile, and in 6WTC too. Don't forget about that stuff. )

Chop chop kiddo.

 

[triforcharity]

Semantics. Call it what you will, the Harvey supplied water.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+John+J.+Harvey%3A+Fireboat+Hero+of+9%2F11

"For three days, the Harvey joined three active-duty fireboats to provide the only water there was to keep the 9/11 fires from getting worse."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129435&page=1

Nobody is arguing that. It is a strawman.

No, but that does not change the fact that they did run lines from the Harvey and other fire boats, and that was a water supply so your question is moot.

No, it most certainly is NOT moot. You made the claim that the FDNY could have got water to the fires in 7WTC. Now, you "know" the math, so get to calculating there champ.

Full of piss and vinegar a little while ago, but now, for one reason or another, you're shy.

I wonder why...........

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Semantics. Call it what you will, the Harvey supplied water.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+John+J.+Harvey%3A+Fireboat+Hero+of+9%2F11

"For three days, the Harvey joined three active-duty fireboats to provide the only water there was to keep the 9/11 fires from getting worse."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129435&page=1


Also, can you respond to my questions in post 6822?
No, but that does not change the fact that they did run lines from the Harvey and other fire boats, and that was a water supply so your question is moot.

It is definitely not moot. In order to fight a fire you need sufficient amounts of water at sufficient pressure. Show me that there was sufficient water amounts at sufficient pressure to fight a fire that was already engulfing the building.

Hooking up to a sprinkler or standpipe system in a building that is already fully involved is futile. I'll explain it to you if you don't understand why.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Show us the complete math. From the Harvey all the way to the 21st floor of 7WTC.

I'll wait........(Don't forget the 1800' or so of hoselay from the Harvey to 7WTC, and another thing you need to account for is the problem of where to get enough hose from. Also, don't forget that you're not only fighting the fires in 7WTC, but also the rubble pile, and in 6WTC too. Don't forget about that stuff. )

Chop chop kiddo.

Yes, please do Chris. This is what I asked for in my previous post.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

No, but that does not change the fact that they did run lines from the Harvey and other fire boats, and that was a water supply so your question is moot.

If you can't do the calculations, then why are you so sure of yourself?

 

[triforcharity]

If you can't do the calculations, then why are you so sure of yourself?

Because he can investigoogle something, apply it incorrectly, and expect it to support his delusions....Why else?

But, in all seriousness, I would LOVE to see the answer to that also.

 

[sylvan8798]

The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

Ummm, yeah...

Physics 101: F=ma

Try finding "path of least resistance" in ANY intro physics text. Let me know when you do, thanks.

 

[sylvan8798]

Cow pucky. The debris damage did NOT destabilize the building.
NIST L pg 36
Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

I'm gonna go out on a giant limb here and suggest that the FDNY was not in a position on 9/11 to do an analysis as to the structural soundness of WTC 7.

What the h is your point anyways?

 

[leftysergeant]

Loose the attitude.

It isn't ab out attitude. It is about professional training and common sense.

You don't know what the priorities were so unless you can provide an official source you and TFC are just giving your opinions.

Actually, as a veteran fire fighter, I do. There are certain things that you do just as SOP because it saves you the time at the scene of the fire if you already have a rough outline of your duties.

The priorities are to protect human lives, extinguish the fires and cover exposures to prevent the spread of the fire or thermal injuries to persons in the area. Everyone had been evacuated from WTC7 and the surrounding structures. WTC7 appeared unsafe to enter. It would have been an unneccessary risk of lives to go in. The exposures had to be covered to some extent, but even that was abandoned as collapse seemed more certain. The fires in WTC7 appeared not to threaten to spread to other structures and there were no personnel exposed to heat from it.

WTC6 was burning very hot, posing a threat to all surrounding structures and vehicles and to personnel trying to search for survivors. It was essential, in order to perform the first priority task, i.e., preserving human life, to extinguish the fire and to cover exposures. There were also numerous vehicles on the street fully-involved, which meant that there was a threat of Class B fires spreading throughouut the area, on top of flying debris from such vehicles as cooked off in the fires. Protecting an abandoned building that was no immediate threat to others just wasn't all that important.

As for laying hoses, there are only so many outlets from a water pump, so any added hose connections would not have increased the amount of water that could be delivered. You have ignored too many factors here, and it is obviously because you have no knowledge of SOP for fire fighting operations. Please limit your positive statements to those areas in which you have some knowledge, experience or aplicable skill set. Feel free to ask questions about those areas in which you lack the skill sets to make a decision or form an opinion.

Fire science is the one area in which you have demonstrated the least knowledge, and that seems limited to hydraulics, not to fire chemistry, fire evolution, fuels or chemical hazards.

You most certainly know nothing about the nature of the professional fire fighter or how he thinks and sets priorities.

(Hell, forty+ years later, I am just now coming to understand why I did some of the goofy **** I did back then.)

Since the collapses of the WTC towers had damaged the water main, there was no secondary supply of water available (such as from the gravity-fed overhead tanks that supplied water to Floor 21 and above) to control those fires that eventually led to the building collapse. - NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Those water tanks on the upper floors may as well have been on the moon. It was declared unsafe for anyone to enter WTC7 to access them.

 

[Oz1976]

Big help, I don't know Chris well enough to just take his word for it.

You made the claim that it was full of explosives. You prove it.

Bullets?

Are you serious? I mean, your beligerance is astounding.

World Trade Center 6
Tenants:
United States Customs Service
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
United States Department of Agriculture - Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (AAPHIS)
United States Department of Labor
The Peace Corps ( New York Regional Office)
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Eastco Building Services (building management)

Customs and ATF. Now think again about your idiocy regarding which was the more important fire to quelch.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It is definitely not moot. In order to fight a fire you need sufficient amounts of water at sufficient pressure. Show me that there was sufficient water amounts at sufficient pressure to fight a fire that was already engulfing the building.

Hooking up to a sprinkler or standpipe system in a building that is already fully involved is futile. I'll explain it to you if you don't understand why.

Raging, massive, and now engulfing. Or is it "already engulfing." Oh wait "fully involved." You've explained your lack of credibility, understanding fire ain't your strong suit and holds no water.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Are you serious? I mean, your beligerance is astounding.

World Trade Center 6
Tenants:
United States Customs Service
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
United States Department of Agriculture - Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (AAPHIS)
United States Department of Labor
The Peace Corps ( New York Regional Office)
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Eastco Building Services (building management)

Customs and ATF. Now think again about your idiocy regarding which was the more important fire to quelch.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic comments

What Was In Building 7?

At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.
Tenant Square Feet Floor Industry
Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND,1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institution
IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
C.I.A. N/A N/A Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institution
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institution
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institution
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21 [Insurance]
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institution
NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Government
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government
This list is based on a table published by CNN.com, which did not include CIA, whose tenancy was disclosed after the attack in the New York Times article. 1

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. 2 The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

 

[tempesta29]

Show us your force diagram. Are you forgetting the mass of the upper block? You expect the upper block to change direction and circumvent the lower columns? Are you this stupid?

Upper block? This is a discussion of WTC 7 in case you lost track. And if we were discussing the Twin Towers, then yes, of course I expect the upper blocks to circumvent the massive amount of resistance below. You're claiming that ~80 floors of steel and concrete is the path of least resistance. That's ridiculous.

Oh, and ad hominem.

Buildings come in many different structural framing systems, materials, & sizes. Are you suggesting that none of those differences should be a factor in in your answer as to whether they should or should not have?

What about WTC 7's composition means it should have been reduced to a pile of rubble because of moderate debris damage and fire?

Here is a smaller building, heavily damaged from a failed CD. Virtually all support is taken out except for the far side. It does not collapse down. It topples over and retains its form.

The overwhelming number of WTC 7's columns were undamaged, yet it failed to retain any semblance of its former structure and somehow reached free fall despite the fact that steel would have resisted failure significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAbeA3yR38

 

[tempesta29]

Ummm, yeah...

Physics 101: F=ma

Try finding "path of least resistance" in ANY intro physics text. Let me know when you do, thanks.

The path of least resistance is the path which provides the least amount of resistance to motion. What's your point? A ~10 story section of one of the towers choosing to plow through ~100 floors below it is not mass choosing the path of least resistance. That's a mass passing through a larger mass as its being destroyed by controlled demolitions.

Neither of the upper sections decelerates as it encounters undamaged structure, but they should have. Since they did not, the upper sections were not destroying the lower.

 

[A W Smith]

Upper block? This is a discussion of WTC 7 in case you lost track. And if we were discussing the Twin Towers, then yes, of course I expect the upper blocks to circumvent the massive amount of resistance below. You're claiming that ~80 floors of steel and concrete is the path of least resistance. That's ridiculous.
Oh, and ad hominem.

you would be wrong! still waiting for your force diagram, All you have is your argument from your own arrogant ignorance.

What about WTC 7's composition means it should have been reduced to a pile of rubble because of moderate debris damage and fire?

Here is a smaller building, heavily damaged from a failed CD. Virtually all support is taken out except for the far side. It does not collapse down. It topples over and retains its form.

The overwhelming number of WTC 7's columns were undamaged, yet it failed to retain any semblance of its former structure and somehow reached free fall despite the fact that steel would have resisted failure significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAbeA3yR38

Notice that in your twoof boob video the turkish concrete building does not have any downward momentum. It simply rolls over as a solid mass. A rolling stone gathers no moss as an ignorant truther gathers no intelligence.

 

[tempesta29]

you would be wrong! still waiting for your force diagram, All you have is your argument from your own arrogant ignorance.

Calling someone wrong does not make them wrong.

Do you think I'm in the business of drawing up diagrams for anonymous internet posters? Hope you're kidding.

Notice that in your twoof boob video the turkish concrete building does not have any downward momentum. It simply rolls over as a solid mass. A rolling stone gathers no moss as an ignorant truther gathers no intelligence.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

There is no reason that WTC 7 should have acquired any downward momentum in the first place. That's the whole point. It shouldn't have collapsed down. If it suffered catastrophic damage to its south face then it should have toppled in that direction.

Instead, we observe unscathed columns on the north face offering zero resistance to collapse. Nonsense.

 

[Mel Odious]

Calling someone wrong does not make them wrong.

Do you think I'm in the business of drawing up diagrams for anonymous internet posters? Hope you're kidding.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

There is no reason that WTC 7 should have acquired any downward momentum in the first place. That's the whole point. It shouldn't have collapsed down. If it suffered catastrophic damage to its south face then it should have toppled in that direction.

Instead, we observe unscathed columns on the north face offering zero resistance to collapse. Nonsense.

What part of the structure was strong enough to serve as a hinge or fulcrum for this toppling to occur? That's why you're being asked for a force diagram.

 

[A W Smith]

Calling someone wrong does not make them wrong.

Do you think I'm in the business of drawing up diagrams for anonymous internet posters? Hope you're kidding.

You wont because your ignorance prevents you from understanding force vectors

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

you don't know, and you don't know you don't know.

There is no reason that WTC 7 should have acquired any downward momentum in the first place. That's the whole point. It shouldn't have collapsed down. If it suffered catastrophic damage to its south face then it should have toppled in that direction.

Instead, we observe unscathed columns on the north face offering zero resistance to collapse. Nonsense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5102308&postcount=90

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5102465&postcount=96

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5102308#post5102308

 

[tempesta29]

What part of the structure was strong enough to serve as a hinge or fulcrum for this toppling to occur? That's why you're being asked for a force diagram.

I'm not making the claim that it should have toppled. I'm making the claim that if it were to collapse in some way, it wouldn't have collapsed down. I honestly think the building should have never fallen in any way.

You do know something can topple without a fulcrum right?

 

[A W Smith]

I'm not making the claim that it should have toppled. I'm making the claim that if it were to collapse in some way, it wouldn't have collapsed down. I honestly think the building should have never fallen in any way.

You do know something can topple without a fulcrum right?

need the X component. Show us your work.