Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
I haven't heard that much chest beating since Junior High.
Click to expand...

So, where's that evidence proving the President or FEMA has operational control over the FDNY? Both you and Chris7 seem reluctant to produce it and shut us debunkers up.

Have you even looked for it?
 
twinstead said:
I fear junior high wasn't a whole lot of time ago for Clayton...
Click to expand...

I believe it's the complete opposite, if his previous sharing of personal info has been truthful. He at least has a son, possibly a grandson but I don't care enough to go searching through his posts to confirm/deny that.
 
excaza said:
I believe it's the complete opposite, if his previous sharing of personal info has been truthful. He at least has a son, possibly a grandson but I don't care enough to go searching through his posts to confirm/deny that.
Click to expand...

Oh well, let's just assume it's true then. No need to do research.

Mmm, where have I seen that before?
 
Christopher7 said:
NCSTAR 1A Pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST L pg 36 [pdf pg 40]
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.
At 1:30 p.m. the only fires were on floors 7 and 12.

The building was NOT in danger of collapse.
Click to expand...
And it's your position that the FDNY was able to determine that ON 9/11? If you were in charge of the firefighting operations that morning and had the decision to make regarding WTC 7, what would you have said?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Secondly, you'll note that the new instruction contains the exception for "immediate responses as authorized by reference d." I hope you noticed that, because it's in the excerpt you posted. Reference D is 'DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”', which states that "Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."
Click to expand...
Kind of chilling. Almost like they knew what was coming. [cue jaws music]

OMG, eleventy eleven!!11!!!11!!
 
Christopher7 said:
Now you are playing with semantics. The point is - they had sufficient water and pressure to get to the 12th floor, not sufficient water to put out all the fires, but you know that.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have been very specific there chief. Instead of trying to be smart, like you know the first damn thing about firefighting.

Christopher7 said:
You keep talking about what cannot be done. That's a pointless waste of time and column space.
Click to expand...

You still have not shown that A-there was enough manpower or equipment available and B-That there was any REASON to fight the fire and endanger MORE firefighter lives.

THAT is the ENTIRE point ALL ALONG. Even if they COULD have fought the fire, it would have been an UNNECESSARY risk to take, considering the fact that IT WAS ALREADY STRUCTURALLY DAMAGED.

Do you UNDERSTAND what that means? Do you understand that FDNY looked at a building with LARGE portions of it missing, and BULGING on one sid, is AUTOMATICALLY characterized as an UNSAFE building? It doesn't matter what NIST said LATER about damage not contributing to the collapse, since NIST had NOT released the report on 7WTC before 1pm on 9/11.

FDNY made the right choice, not matter how much you want to complain and bitch and argue and stomp your feet.


Christopher7 said:
No need for either of us non firefighters to do the math.
Click to expand...

Good thing this firefighter has already done the math, and looked at the different possibilities, and concluded that 7WTC was NOT a priority, not was it an OPTION to fight the fires in 7WTC.


Christopher7 said:
The real firefighters did the math and found the solution. Your whole "show me your math" clearly demonstrates that you don't know how they got the water from the Harvey to the site at high pressure. You didn't consider using pump trucks in relay.
Click to expand...

No, I know that pumps in relay are absolutely an option. But here is what you seem to KEEP forgetting.

Ready?

Many of FDNY's resources were NOT available, due to the fact that many of them were DESTROYED in the collapse of the towers.

They include:
15 Engines
3 Squads
15 Ladders
2 Highrise Trucks
and
44 other misc. vehicles.

Do you UNDERSTAND what that means? It means that we are not only SHORT STAFFED, but also we are trying to work with LESS equipment than we brought to the scene. This doesn't even begin to scratch the SURFACE of vehicles that were damaged that couldn't be used.

Your argument is nill and void.


Christopher7 said:
(emphasis mine)
Over the course of the next 3-days, three large fireboats would pump for twenty four hours a day to supply almost 60,000 gallons of water per minute. (See photo on left of the Fireboat Firefighter supplying numerous large diameter supply lines. Photo by Huntley Gill) Their water supplied pumpers in relay, manifolds, and building standpipes. Without the pumping capabilities of these old boats the fires in the surrounding hi-rise building as well as the dozens of cars and emergency vehicles which were burning could not have been attacked.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.marinefirefighting.com/Pages/Newsletters/Newsletter9.htm[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yep. Point?

Christopher7 said:
A "professional firefighter who was there" would have known that they used pump trucks along the way and would never have argued about friction losses.
Click to expand...

Use, they did. They used pump relay to get the water to where it needed to be. 7WTC was not where it NEEDED to be. It NEEDED to be near the collapsed area to rescue people, and prevent more casulaties.

Keep running your mouth about things you don't know the first thing about. Like I have said plenty of times, when I need to frame a window, i'll be sure to contact you. I think firefighting should be left to EXPERTS. (This doesn't in any way INCLUDE you)
 
They include:
15 Engines
3 Squads
15 Ladders
2 Highrise Trucks
and
44 other misc. vehicles.
=========================
And 300+ Humans. This miscreant think's that's irrelevant. Maybe he thinks that because 10s or 100s of 1,000s of firefighters were available throughout the country that they should have been there to protect Building 7.

Sorta like he thinks the entirety of the Hudson river was there at their beckon call.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
99 days? What kind of fire can't be put out for 99 days?

Friction from the collapse?
Click to expand...

wow... I"m going to have serious bruising from all the
<facepalm>

Have you ever heard of a coal seam fire? Look them up and tell me how long they have burned...
 
sylvan8798 said:
And it's your position that the FDNY was able to determine that ON 9/11? If you were in charge of the firefighting operations that morning and had the decision to make regarding WTC 7, what would you have said?
Click to expand...

Hindsight,the only direction that truthers can see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom