Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[dafydd]

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



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.




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.




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.




Yep. Point?



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)

It is surprising that an amateur like Chris7 should be teaching a real firefighter to suck eggs. The less truthers know about a subject the more voluble they are about it.

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

I think you are the one playing with semantics. You appear to be trying to say NIST lied because they said there wasn't enough water, rather than saying "there wasn't enough water, firefighters, resources, to do all the things that were needing done that day, etc., etc." Their failure to lay out the whole scene to your satisfaction doesn't constitute any reason to assume inside-jobby-job (except in trutherville, of course ).

 

[excaza]

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...

Yeah. OK. There were veins of coal beneath the WTC buildings?

Apparently there was nothing combustible in any of the buildings that collapsed.

 

[NoahFence]

Apparently there was nothing combustible in any of the buildings that collapsed.

How many bubblers were in there? Toilets? Other sources of water? Why didn't those put the fires out?

 

[dafydd]

Apparently there was nothing combustible in any of the buildings that collapsed.

Was everything made of asbestos?

 

[King of the Americas]

Basically, I do NOT believe that a group of men armed only with box cutters could penetrate the Pentagon's air space, and indeed damage it, "as a secondary target", without anyone knowing, or being able to stop it.

While I am no expert on the timeline, when last I looked at it, the time it took between the first attack, us KNOWING there were other planes off course and unresponsive, and the time it takes to scramble intercept aircraft are "off"...

That our President sat there cowering with kids, rather than become the Commander in Chief, the ONLY man who could order a civilian jet be shot down, reeked of incompetence.

I think it is far more likely that we, someone, or a group of people KNEW there was going to be an attack, and that the attack was not stopped, but rather allowed to continue unencumbered.

Given the look of President Bush's face as he sat there knowing "we are under attack", he was likely out of the loop.

 

[excaza]

Basically, I do NOT believe that a group of men armed only with box cutters could penetrate the Pentagon's air space, and indeed damage it, "as a secondary target", without anyone knowing, or being able to stop it.

Oh no! Incredulity! They found out when they deviated from course and couldn't establish communications.

While I am no expert on the timeline, when last I looked at it, the time it took between the first attack, us KNOWING there were other planes off course and unresponsive, and the time it takes to scramble intercept aircraft are "off"...

Meanwhile, actual experts (you know, the people you love to ignore) have examined it and found nothing wrong.

I think it is far more likely that we, someone, or a group of people KNEW there was going to be an attack, and that the attack was not stopped, but rather allowed to continue unencumbered.

You're welcome to think whatever you want. It's completely meaningless unless you can provide real evidence instead of "I think." I really don't care what you think, since you've yet to be able to support any assertions you have made on this web site.

 

[Christopher7]

Only a dimwit would actually believe that Rotten Rudy could have given a stupid order on that day and gotten away with it for ten years.

I said the PTB and only a naive fool would think that they couldn't.

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.

The fire department saw the damage, and said "Screw that empty, creraking building. We have other priorities."

They talked to an "engineer" and then decided the building was unsafe.

Then the fire finished off the building.

No, the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier

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.

There is a limit to everything. You are also makiing the childish mistake of assuming that the heat would have no effect on how efficiently any fail-safes would function.

No, I'm pointing out that the debris damage did NOT make the building unstable.

At 1:30 p.m. the only fires were on floors 7 and 12.

You seem to be ignorant of the most basic fact about fires in a pile of dry Class A fuels. They spread.

Thank you for that brilliant piece of insight. However, my point is that there were only two fires at 1:30 and water was available.

Yeah, there was no immediate threat after all,

Correct

but, having seen two other buildings collapse and having observed that the buildiong was leaning a bit

Why are you still making that ridiculous statement?

and making creaking noises

Not surprising that the damaged area would creak.

 

[Travis]

Basically, I do NOT believe that a group of men armed only with box cutters could penetrate the Pentagon's air space, and indeed damage it, "as a secondary target", without anyone knowing, or being able to stop it.

Why not? Civilian airliners were penetrating the "Pentagon airspace" every day in the years before the attacks.

And, if they did know about the planes, what would they have had to stop it?

While I am no expert on the timeline, when last I looked at it, the time it took between the first attack, us KNOWING there were other planes off course and unresponsive, and the time it takes to scramble intercept aircraft are "off"...

As you are no "expert" then you shouldn't feel bad for not knowing this is wrong.

That our President sat there cowering with kids, rather than become the Commander in Chief, the ONLY man who could order a civilian jet be shot down, reeked of incompetence.

Nobody knew the first impact was deliberate at the time. By the time he knew of a second one he had to wait for his staff to gather information and for the Secret Service to plan a route of extraction.

Or did you really want the President to just start throwing out shoot down orders left and right at a time when the number of hijacked planes could have only been two or as many as twelve?

I think it is far more likely that we, someone, or a group of people KNEW there was going to be an attack, and that the attack was not stopped, but rather allowed to continue unencumbered.

Okay, why do you think this is more likely? What would have been done differently, in your opinion, if no one knew about it?

Given the look of President Bush's face as he sat there knowing "we are under attack", he was likely out of the loop.

Okay. So what was the deal with the insinuation he should have been more Commandering in Chiefing?

 

[excaza]

Why the **** would they waste time and manpower to fight a fire in an empty building when there was wreckage of two others that weren't empty right next to it?

 

[King of the Americas]

...

... I really don't care what you think, since you've yet to be able to support any assertions you have made on this web site.

Thankfully, I don't need you to care about what I think, to be happy or feel complete.

 

[excaza]

Thankfully, I don't need you to care about what I think, to be happy or feel complete.

Well, ignorance is bliss.

How's that evidence coming? Still empty handed? I'm shocked!

 

[Travis]

They talked to an "engineer" and then decided the building was unsafe.

Why is "engineer" in scare quotes?

And a good engineer would have thought the building was unsafe. Especially after it started to look like it was leaning.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Okay. So what was the deal with the insinuation he should have been more Commandering in Chiefing?

I know it sounds monday morning quarterback-ish, but when the country is under attack, you put the children's book DOWN, and tend to your military post.

Sitting in a room surrounded by children with your tail between your legs is NOT what the Commander in Chief SHOULD do. And this isn't what 'I' would do in that situation.

 

[excaza]

And a good engineer would have thought the building was unsafe. Especially after it started to look like it was leaning.

I would probably say it was unsafe after watching pieces of another building crash into it, even if it didn't actually do structural damage. I'm not going to run in and check and say "oh, never mind, you can all go back to work now!"

 

[triforcharity]

No, I'm pointing out that the debris damage did NOT make the building unstable.

When was the report made available to the FDNY? Was it around 11am that day? How about noon? 1pm? How about YEARS later.......

Would you have bet the life of yourself and others that it was safe for human occupancy?

I wouldn't. Neither did the EXPERTS!!!!

Are you an EXPERT on firefighting operations and strucral stability of a building that has suffered damage of unknown severity?

No. That would be the FDNY, who made that decision, and correctly so.

Not surprising that the damaged area would creak.

Nope, but do you know what a creaking building signifies?

Unstability.

Because a creaking building that is shown to be damaged, is unsafe, because the CREAKING indicates that SOMETHING is shifting inside the building.

Good thing FDNY didn't consult you on 9/11. Another 30 or so guys would be dead. Sorry, 343 is too much, no need to risk adding any more.

 

[TjW]

Basically, I do NOT believe that a group of men armed only with box cutters could penetrate the Pentagon's air space, and indeed damage it, "as a secondary target", without anyone knowing, or being able to stop it.

That's because they weren't only armed with box cutters. They were also armed with a thirty-year-old policy of appeasing hijackers.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know it sounds monday morning quarterback-ish, but when the country is under attack, you put the children's book DOWN, and tend to your military post.

Sitting in a room surrounded by children with your tail between your legs is NOT what the Commander in Chief SHOULD do. And this isn't what 'I' would do in that situation.

So how does proving that the Shrub is a dimwit prove that he had the wattage to plan an operation this big?

 

[dafydd]

Basically, I do NOT believe that a group of men armed only with box cutters could penetrate the Pentagon's air space, and indeed damage it, "as a secondary target", without anyone knowing, or being able to stop it.

While I am no expert on the timeline, when last I looked at it, the time it took between the first attack, us KNOWING there were other planes off course and unresponsive, and the time it takes to scramble intercept aircraft are "off"...

That our President sat there cowering with kids, rather than become the Commander in Chief, the ONLY man who could order a civilian jet be shot down, reeked of incompetence.

I think it is far more likely that we, someone, or a group of people KNEW there was going to be an attack, and that the attack was not stopped, but rather allowed to continue unencumbered.

Given the look of President Bush's face as he sat there knowing "we are under attack", he was likely out of the loop.

What you think has no relevance. Evidence is the keyword.

 

[dafydd]

I know it sounds monday morning quarterback-ish, but when the country is under attack, you put the children's book DOWN, and tend to your military post.

Sitting in a room surrounded by children with your tail between your legs is NOT what the Commander in Chief SHOULD do. And this isn't what 'I' would do in that situation.

And what would you have done?