Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[TruthersLie]

It should have done what the structure in my video did: topple. I know that because that's what buildings do under those circumstances.

You do realize that you are making an argument form incredulity and ignorance here right?

That building which toppled over... what was its construction method?
wtc 1,2 and7... what were their construction methods?

do you think there is a massive difference between those construction methods?
How big of a difference do you think there is?
Do you think that one construction method will react similarly to another construction method in similar circumstances?


Just simple questions to demonstrate your competency and ignorance levels.

(oh hey... you never did get back to the hijackers, nor the box cutters... why did you run away from that so quickly? did it hurt to have your ignorance and incredulity bruised like that?)

 

[leftysergeant]

It should have done what the structure in my video did: topple. I know that because that's what buildings do under those circumstances.

Bull flops piled to the rafters.

The turkish flour mill was a solid block and it was already notched on the side. There was a far greater weight pulling the whole structure in the direction of that notch.

More importantly, the building was in no way constructed like the towers or WTC7 so it does not even matter why it rolled over.

 

[leftysergeant]

Clayton pointed out that the offices of the tenants of WTC 7 would be a priority over the tenants in WTC 6.

And he is totally dead wrong and has no more knowledge of fire science than have you. Your argumentum ad authoritam is as effective as grabbing a millstone when you are about to fall overboard.

Your speculation about large amounts of ammo or other things that could blow up is just speculation. Fire is always a consideration and it is just plain silly to claim that they would have dangerous amounts of ammo and/or explosives in a commercial building. Find an official source or stop making that baseless claim.

Every newspaper article or official press release that names the activities in the buildings states that there was an ATF evidence locker and a pistol range in WTC6. Your claim is, thus counter-intuitive, and thus it falls on YOU to prove your claim. And, if you go back and look at Clayton's list, it was NOT a commercial building. You are selling total BS.

As the NIST reports have shown, traumatized firefighters are NOT qualified to make a determination about the possibility of WTC 7 collapsing. The debris damage did not seriously harm the overall structure of WTC 7.

It did cause the side of the building to bulge outward. They had a surveyor check it out. Having just seen two other buildings collapse, there was no reason not to expect the fires in WTC7 to cause that one to collapse as well. And, since there were no lives at risk in the building, all attention was shifted to fighting the fires that were in the way of the rescue attempts and to cover exposures. To say they should have done otherwise is to contradict the standard procedures of every fire department in the country. There was nothing in the building woreth risking a human life. There was no way to fight the fire without entering. Bugger that.

The NIST collapse hypothesis is that an internal failure, that no one could have predicted, started the collapse. Of course, that didn't happen because the fire that supposedly caused it had gone out over an hour earlier.

Utter non-fact. There is not one shred of evidence to that effect.

At 1:30 p.m., the only fires were on floor 7 and floor 12. They could have been easily accessed from the Barkley St. entrances or the east side entrance. Water was available, your denial notwithstanding.

Bull flops. They would still have to enter the building and no fire chief with the IQ of a wombat would order people in there to do it with nobody there to rescue.

Surrounding? Look at the map lefty. The only buildings anywhere near WTC 6 were WTC 5, which had far greater damage and fire than the Verizon building and WTC 7 across the street. WTC 7 was much closer to the Verizon building and the post office so it would be the priority if protecting surrounding buildings were a criteria.

They could do that from the street.

Fighting the 2 fires in WTC 7 would not hamper rescue operations. They had plenty of people to do that.

Total pile of crap. They did not have enough people. Thety had just lost a couple hundred people and a whole lot of apparatus. They had more need of people to perform search and resuce than to try to save a building they thought doomed.

Your ignorance of fire science and strategy is showing again.

Exposure? Just keep a safe distance from WTC 5 and 6.

Not an option. There were people near the buildings when the collapses occurred. Some were trapped under fire trucks.

And there was still hazardous material in WTC 6. The fires there could be accessed through the blown-out windows. No need to enter. No fire fighter wouldl even have to think about it to determine that this was the more manageable of the two fires.

The vehicles were mostly burned down to nothing but steel so it appears the many were left to burn out. Cars on fire might be a priority but not to the exclusion of a building housing the IRS, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, SEC and the emergency command and control bunker.

Nonsense. They were a hazard to fire fighters. There is nothing in any of the offices you name worth killing fire fighters to defend. Rotten Rudy's bunker was probably something like priority number five thousand at the time. The moron should never have put it there in the first place. The building was, by any measure that the fire officials could apply, not safe to enter.

The fireboat Harvey, along with a couple other fireboats, supplied all the water with enough pressure to reach the 12th floor and more. So questions about hoses, friction losses and outlets are moot and just an intentional diversion.

Don't forget the point I am making:
NIST claimed that there was NO water to fight the fire in WTC 7.
That is not true.

And you have offered no proof that there was sufficient water for both fires.

You have also not explained how they were supposed to fight a fire which they could not access without enterinng a building that they already figured was going to collapse like the other two.

You have no expertise in this field, but are arguing with at least two people here who have.

Youo already showed yourself utterly unqualified when you suggested that Rotten Rudy had any authority over how operations were to be conducted. Had he tried to take command, he would probably have wound up carrying a very large deluge nozzle in an undignified manner.

 

[Justin39640]

Talk about being wrong.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic comments

What Was In Building 7?


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

Um... they didn't store bullets in 7WTC. That's kinda the point. Bomb, bullet, and windproof bunkers don't hold up well to giant skyscrapers falling on them either.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The overwhelming number of WTC 7's columns were undamaged, yet it failed to retain any semblance of its former structure

Your Turkish building is built out of concrete framing, and the framing system itself is totally different that the construction of WTC 7. This is obvious from the archived drawings of WTC 7 and the video you posted. A reinforced concrete construction has more monolithic properties than a steel-frame. This means fewer connections between pieces and a more rigid construction. Steel is used because it is lighter than concrete and stronger, but it has to be built as an assembly of pieces. The result is lighter, taller construction but a construction that's in relative terms much less rigid than a monolithic concrete frame. It's no surprise whatsoever from an engineering standpoint that the results between your example and WTC 7 are radically different.

This is engineering tempesta. I hate adding to the rhetoric that your arguments are based on ignorance but you do not come to any architect or engineer and tell them with a straight face that two buildings with two completely different construction systems are going to behave similarly. This is basic stuff and you should be interested in at least learning about the implications of what you're saying.

 

[NoahFence]

if it suffered catastrophic damage to its south face then it should have toppled in that direction.

it did!!!!

 

[NoahFence]

It should have just remained standing! I know that because it wasn't damaged badly enough to collapse. It's really that simple.

And you know that because you were on site? You could see the building bulging on the south side? You heard the building creak and moan all afternoon? Why didn't you just say that?

 

[NoahFence]

So the upper block has to shift horizontally in order for it to follow a path other than through the lower block? Preposterous. And how much energy was required for it to plow through 90+ floors of steel and concrete? One of the towers was simply hit on a corner. Again, no toppling toward that side.

Seriously? Now you're questioning if it has to move horizontally at all?

Movement only comes in two flavors - horizontal or vertical. It's your assertion it shouldn't have gone vertical, so we're left to assume you think it should have gone horizontal.

What force is required for that? (I'm writing a paper and need an expert opinion on this.)

 

[Christopher7]

Clayton pointed out that the offices of the tenants of WTC 7 would be a priority over the tenants in WTC 6.

And he is totally dead wrong and has no more knowledge of fire science than have you.

Science? He wasn't talking about science. He was talking about the relative importance of tenants.
So you think the ATF and customs are more important than the SEC, FBI, CIA and the Secret Service? . . . . . Right

Your argumentum ad authoritam is as effective as grabbing a millstone when you are about to fall overboard.

You are talking about yourself.

Every newspaper article or official press release that names the activities in the buildings states that there was an ATF evidence locker and a pistol range in WTC6.

So what?

Your claim is, thus counter-intuitive, and thus it falls on YOU to prove your claim.

You are talking about yourself again. You are the one who claimed "There were also vast amounts of explosive material there". It falls on YOU to prove your claim.

And, if you go back and look at Clayton's list, it was NOT a commercial building.

It was called the Salomon Brothers building because they are the main tenants. They are a Wall Street investment bank.

It did cause the side of the building to bulge outward. They had a surveyor check it out.

No. Hayden put a transit on it because the "bulge" was so small he had to use a transit to be sure it was a bulge. It was just in the damaged corner area and no one else mentioned this bulge.

Having just seen two other buildings collapse, there was no reason not to expect the fires in WTC7 to cause that one to collapse as well.

I agree with you on this except they thought it was the debris damage, the elevator cars in the hallway, damage to core columns, the creaking and the fires. The chiefs were traumatized and grief stricken. They naturally felt responsible for the safety of the firefighters under their command and they erred on the side of caution.

The NIST collapse hypothesis is that an internal failure, that no one could have predicted, started the collapse. Of course, that didn't happen because the fire that supposedly caused it had gone out over an hour earlier.

Utter non-fact. There is not one shred of evidence to that effect.

Quite the contrary, it is a clear fact. Please view the evidence Here
Please comment on the evidence and keep your opinions of me to yourself. [unless it's quality sarcasm]

 

[NoahFence]

Clayton pointed out that the offices of the tenants of WTC 7 would be a priority over the tenants in WTC 6.

Your speculation about large amounts of ammo or other things that could blow up is just speculation. Fire is always a consideration and it is just plain silly to claim that they would have dangerous amounts of ammo and/or explosives in a commercial building. Find an official source or stop making that baseless claim.

As the NIST reports have shown, traumatized firefighters are NOT qualified to make a determination about the possibility of WTC 7 collapsing. The debris damage did not seriously harm the overall structure of WTC 7. The NIST collapse hypothesis is that an internal failure, that no one could have predicted, started the collapse. Of course, that didn't happen because the fire that supposedly caused it had gone out over an hour earlier.

At 1:30 p.m., the only fires were on floor 7 and floor 12. They could have been easily accessed from the Barkley St. entrances or the east side entrance. Water was available, your denial notwithstanding.

Surrounding? Look at the map lefty. The only buildings anywhere near WTC 6 were WTC 5, which had far greater damage and fire than the Verizon building and WTC 7 across the street. WTC 7 was much closer to the Verizon building and the post office so it would be the priority if protecting surrounding buildings were a criteria.

Fighting the 2 fires in WTC 7 would not hamper rescue operations. They had plenty of people to do that.

Exposure? Just keep a safe distance from WTC 5 and 6.

The vehicles were mostly burned down to nothing but steel so it appears the many were left to burn out. Cars on fire might be a priority but not to the exclusion of a building housing the IRS, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, SEC and the emergency command and control bunker.

You are the one ignoring the primary factor.

The fireboat Harvey, along with a couple other fireboats, supplied all the water with enough pressure to reach the 12th floor and more. So questions about hoses, friction losses and outlets are moot and just an intentional diversion.

Don't forget the point I am making:
NIST claimed that there was NO water to fight the fire in WTC 7.
That is not true.

Very few times in my memory have I ever seen such a pompous jerk think that he's so right on so many things, when in actuality he couldn't be more wrong on everything. You're given sources and when you read them your reaction is to say "provide a source".

You think that an unoccupied building is a higher priority than a building that could still have people in it.

You think one fireboat is capable of feeding enough lines to fight a massive fire in multiple structures - all the while one of them is known to be coming down.

You have the unbridled audacity not only to think you know more via Google than a firefighter knows about firefighting - but you know more about the specifics of 9/11 than someone who was THERE.

Stick to hammering nails, bro. I question even your ability to do THAT.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Very few times in my memory have I ever seen such a pompous jerk think that he's so right on so many things, when in actuality he couldn't be more wrong on everything. You're given sources and when you read them your reaction is to say "provide a source".

You think that an unoccupied building is a higher priority than a building that could still have people in it.

You think one fireboat is capable of feeding enough lines to fight a massive fire in multiple structures - all the while one of them is known to be coming down.

You have the unbridled audacity not only to think you know more via Google than a firefighter knows about firefighting - but you know more about the specifics of 9/11 than someone who was THERE.

Welcome to my exchanges with the guy in 2009

 

[NoahFence]

So you think the ATF and customs are more important than the SEC, FBI, CIA and the Secret Service? . . . . . Right

Eh hem....

ATF and Customs AGENTS are more important than SEC, FBI, CIA and Secret Service stuff

Every newspaper article or official press release that names the activities in the buildings states that there was an ATF evidence locker and a pistol range in WTC6.

So what?

Don't tell anyone - it'll be our secret. They use bullets at pistol ranges. There are weapons and ammo in ATFirearms lockers.

Just answer me one question, kiddo - Why do you keep citing NIST when you obviously hate them? Did one of the members of the committee wrong you in some way? Sue you for building a failed deck on their house or something?

 

[NoahFence]

Fighting the 2 fires in WTC 7 would not hamper rescue operations. They had plenty of people to do that.

I don't know if that comment should be Stundied, or retracted. Talk about offensive.

 

[leftysergeant]

Science? He wasn't talking about science. He was talking about the relative importance of tenants.
So you think the ATF and customs are more important than the SEC, FBI, CIA and the Secret Service? . . . . . Right

No. But that is not a consideration in fire fighting operations. If Warren Buffet is known to be on vacation out of country and a plane hits both his house and that of a welfare mom who was last seen entering her home, She gets first priority. There were people last seen around WTC6. Bugger and empty building. Lives come first.

You are talking about yourself again. You are the one who claimed "There were also vast amounts of explosive material there". It falls on YOU to prove your claim.

I offered evidence which is not contradicted by anything I have seen. Nobody here has seen anything wrong with it other than you. Pick up that burden of proof or be thought a slacker.

It was called the Salomon Brothers building because they are the main tenants. They are a Wall Street investment bank.

Whoopie. Nobody cares, especially not fire fighters.

No. Hayden put a transit on it because the "bulge" was so small he had to use a transit to be sure it was a bulge. It was just in the damaged corner area and no one else mentioned this bulge.

Not a factual statement. Had nobody mentioned a bulge, they would not have sent for the surveor

Quite the contrary, it is a clear fact. Please view the evidence Here
Please comment on the evidence and keep your opinions of me to yourself. [unless it's quality sarcasm]

There does not seem to be any evidence there. The only thing that would mean anything (if true) is the distribution of heat on the given floors.

You have none. Your charts are worthless because they are not based on science, but on the observation of someone with no fire fighting credentials.

 

[kmortis]

I just cleaned out the worst of the off topic and personal sniping. While I realize that this can be a contentious issue, you still need to follow the Memebership Agreement you agreed to when you joined. Keep to the topic at hand - and the topic is never the other posters - keep it civil and I won't have to come in here again.

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

 

[Christopher7]

I just cleaned out the worst of the off topic and personal sniping. While I realize that this can be a contentious issue, you still need to follow the Memebership Agreement you agreed to when you joined. Keep to the topic at hand - and the topic is never the other posters - keep it civil and I won't have to come in here again.

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

You missed a few 6896, 6897, 6898, 6910, 6911 and 6913 are 100% personal attacks, have no value and add nothing the the debate.

But thank you for cleaning up some of them.

 

[Christopher7]

No. But that is not a consideration in fire fighting operations. There were people last seen around WTC6. Bugger and empty building. Lives come first.

You keep making statements without any source. Please post your source specifically, not Google "so and so".

I offered evidence which is not contradicted by anything I have seen.

You have NOT offered evidence of ""There were also vast amounts of explosive material there". It falls on YOU to prove your claim.

Nobody here has seen anything wrong with it other than you. Pick up that burden of proof or be thought a slacker.

Whoopie. Nobody cares, especially not fire fighters.

You were wrong, it was a commercial building, but you can't admit you are wrong so you make a childish, irrelevant hand wave.

Not a factual statement. Had nobody mentioned a bulge, they would not have sent for the surveor

It's clear that you just say things and you haven't done your homework. Hayden did NOT say he sent for a surveyor, he said "we put a transit on it".

"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."

There does not seem to be any evidence there. The only thing that would mean anything (if true) is the distribution of heat on the given floors.

For starters, NIST has a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m. As a professional firefighter, you understand that the hottest gas temperatures are directly over the fire and a fire that has gone out cannot heat steel beams to 600^oC.


Are you with me so far?

 

[NoahFence]

You keep making statements without any source. Please post your source specifically, not Google "so and so".

This statement needs no source. It's common sense. You might as well be asking for a source that lightning hurts if you get hit by it.

You have NOT offered evidence of ""There were also vast amounts of explosive material there". It falls on YOU to prove your claim.

Indeed he has, just not to YOUR exacting specifications. Tough luck. Move on.

You were wrong, it was a commercial building, but you can't admit you are wrong so you make a childish, irrelevant hand wave.

You're wrong on every word you type. Who's childish?

It's clear that you just say things and you haven't done your homework. Hayden did NOT say he sent for a surveyor, he said "we put a transit on it".

And who actually physically does the transit? A surveyor. Again, this is common sense for the rest of us. Obama said "we got Bin Laden" was he talking about himself or the people who did it? (Hint: everybody involved)

For starters, NIST has a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m. As a professional firefighter, you understand that the hottest gas temperatures are directly over the fire and a fire that has gone out cannot heat steel beams to 600oC.

Again, why the constant reference to an orgainization that has obviously wronged you in such a manner that you wouldn't give any of them a cup of water in the middle of a desert? You hate them with the red hot intensity of a thousand blazing suns, yet take their word as gold at every opportunity. Is this not contradictory?

Are you with me so far?

Thankfully no.

 

[triforcharity]

Clayton pointed out that the offices of the tenants of WTC 7 would be a priority over the tenants in WTC 6.

FDNY didn't care about who were tenants. We couldn't care less in fact, who rents or owns the building.

You're knowledge of firefighting SOP is nil. Your post here proves it.

Your speculation about large amounts of ammo or other things that could blow up is just speculation logical.

I fixed your post for you.

Bullets go off, and can harm people. That is a major priority.
Chemicals in a lab blow up. This presents a danger to those around the building. Guess who was right next door? Hundreds of firefighters looking for survivors.

You're knowledge of firefighting SOP is nil. Your post here proves it.

Fire is always a consideration and it is just plain sillylogical to claim that they would have dangerous amounts of ammo and/or explosives in a commercial building. Find an official source or stop making that baseless claim.

Do you consider every known source talking about the tenants of 6WTC to be official? EVERY single resource that lists the tenants of 6WTC, lists the same things.

As the NIST reports have shown, traumatized firefighters are NOT qualified to make a determination about the possibility of WTC 7 collapsing.

Citation needed. (BTW, some firefighters DID predict the collapse. And guess what there champ, they were right.)

The debris damage did not seriously harm the overall structure of WTC 7. The NIST collapse hypothesis is that an internal failure, that no one could have predicted, started the collapse.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It doesn't matter that nobody said before the collapse that column 79 would fail. The fact that people said "it will collapse" is good enough. HOW it would fail is a moot point.

Of course, that didn't happen because the fire that supposedly caused it had gone out over an hour earlier.

Yep, because fire cannot POSSIBLY damage something before it goes out....
You've been schooled on this many times over. Grow up, and at least TRY to learn a thing or two.

At 1:30 p.m., the only fires were on floor 7 and floor 12. They could have been easily accessed from the Barkley St. entrances or the east side entrance. Water was available, your denial notwithstanding.

Show us the math? You're making the claim, now either show me the complete math, including the 1800' hoselay, and remembering to still have enough pressure to run nozzles around 6WTC and also the rubble pile, and anywhere else.

SHOW US THE MATH. You're making the claim, now back it up.

Surrounding? Look at the map lefty. The only buildings anywhere near WTC 6 were WTC 5, which had far greater damage and fire than the Verizon building and WTC 7 across the street. WTC 7 was much closer to the Verizon building and the post office so it would be the priority if protecting surrounding buildings were a criteria.

Well, except for that giant pile that had hundreds of firefighters searching for survivors........Nah, no problem there.......

Fighting the 2 fires in WTC 7 would not hamper rescue operations. They had plenty of people to do that.

Show me the math. Show me how many people would have been needed. Show me where they would have come from. Name the companies.

Oh, and don't forget, explain to me why we would put firefighters INSIDE a burning building, that is UNOCCUPIED and not structurally sound with no water? (You don't have any water untill you show the math)

Exposure? Just keep a safe distance from WTC 5 and 6.

Which would exclude most of the rubble pile. God, your ability to think logically SUCKS. Thank goodness you're not in the fire service. You would kill more firefighters than smoke or fire ever have in the history of the fire department.

The vehicles were mostly burned down to nothing but steel so it appears the many were left to burn out.

Incorrect.

Cars on fire might be a priority but not to the exclusion of a building housing the IRS, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, SEC and the emergency command and control bunker.

FDNY doesn't operate like that. Building tenants do not get priority just because of who they are. You're knowledge of firefighting SOP is nil. Your post here proves it.


Oh, and are you talking about the EOC that was ABANDONED much earlier in the day? That one?

You are the one ignoring the primary factor.

And you're ignoring known facts and logic.

The fireboat Harvey, along with a couple other fireboats, supplied all the water with enough pressure to reach the 12th floor and more. So questions about hoses, friction losses and outlets are moot and just an intentional diversion.

SHOW US THE MATH.

Don't forget the point I am making:
NIST claimed that there was NO water to fight the fire in WTC 7.
That is not true.

Show me the MATH!! To date, you have shown NOT ONE NUMBER backing up this assinine claim. Show me the math there champ.

 

[DGM]

Chris7:

Again, what is the point of all this? What does the FDNY's decision to not fight the fires (never mind if they had the ability) have to do with your view of 9/11? Yes, I understand the FBI, CIA, ect had field offices there. I don't understand how the "command bunker" would be important considering it was abandoned and "command" was already moved. I have never seen any evidence that any of the other agencies work was effected (yes I know it delayed some work by the SEC).

Can you explain this please?