Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[NoahFence]

I have read those accounts and so did NIST. They determined that the debris damage did NOT lead to further collapses because of the moment frames and it did NOT start the collapse or play a significant role in the collapse.

It sounds to me like you believe those accounts, for which I actually applaud you.

Having said that, don't they make it crystal clear that fires were on MUCH more than just 2 floors?

Read all of those accounts AGAIN. It's clear that everybody cited knew it was coming down at one point or another.

 

[NoahFence]

Word games. No one could predict a building collapse 5 hours in advance period.

And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008]

So your proof of nobody being able to correctly predict the collapse is a quote stating someone correctly predicted the collapse??

 

[NoahFence]

WRONG! They predicted the collapse based on the conditions at the time. It is idiotic to think that someone could predict that a building will collapse 5 hours before it does and your willingness to believe it just proves you will believe anything.

Words fail me to describe just how asinine that statement is. Do you think it's impossible for a weatherman to predict a hurricane hitting 5 hours before it does? Do you think it's impossible to predict I'll get a sunburn if I sit outside in the sun for 5 hours?

 

[000063]

The fire was not a threat to the building collapsing then or at any time. It had burned out and did not cause the collapse as NIST claims.

Let's try a different tack; Then what did cause the collapse?

Word games. No one could predict a building collapse 5 hours in advance period.

Are you sure that's what you want to go with? That it's impossible to predict a building's collapse 5 hours ahead of time, ever? Maybe you phrased it wrong.

And if it's "word games", why do you keep using the exact phrasing "predict" and "5 hours in advance"?

And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008]

What is the source of this quote, exactly? TV? Website? Radio? What?

EDIT: It seems to have been a Beeb special on 9/11 conspiracies, which means it's likely plonk in the middle of other inconvenient statements, hence the attribution only to the "BBC".

WRONG! They predicted the collapse based on the conditions at the time. It is idiotic to think that someone could predict that a building will collapse 5 hours before it does and your willingness to believe it just proves you will believe anything.

So, do you have experience with assessing the integrity of buildings damaged by fire?

Strictly speaking, the FDNY thought it would probably fall, at some indefinite point in the future. The engineer's guess was just that; a guess. "Hours" is a fairly large unit of time; if the engineer had been asked fifteen minutes earlier or later, would he have said "five hours and fifteen minutes" or "four hours and forty-five minutes"? You have no idea what the exact interval was which Hayden considers "pretty much right on the money".

Of course, the inference from your statement is that Hayden, the unnamed engineer, or both were complicit in the conspiracy, which means you're accusing the FDNY of helping to cover up the murder of 300+ of their brothers, plus 3000+ innocents.

That is a bald faced lie. Hayden said there was a bulge. He did NOT say it was leaning.

I already admitted I was wrong, Chris. Try to keep up.

 

[A W Smith]

I have read those accounts and so did NIST. They determined that the debris damage did NOT lead to further collapses because of the moment frames and it did NOT start the collapse or play a significant role in the collapse.

And those on the scene knew about this how? The question posed to you is this. How did those on the scene know that the building was safe to enter and fight the fires in in it? And knowing they were 343 men short including fire commanders, Why would they fight a fire in an unoccupied building rather than use all available resources to search the pile for survivors and put out those fires in the pile?

 

[triforcharity]

The fire was not a threat to the building collapsing then or at any time. It had burned out and did not cause the collapse as NIST claims.

Wait, but I thought you said the data that NIST uses is correct?

Their data (that you have repetedly quotemined {for instance NIST L}) states that fire was there. You're trying to tell me that a fire in 7WTC that went unfought for many hours couldn't POSSIBLY cause the building to collapse? Horse **** and you know it.

Word games. No one could predict a building collapse 5 hours in advance period.

And yet, the engineer at the scene did.

And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008]

But wait, you just said nobody could predict it. Which is it?

How about this guy?



Was he wrong or was he just lying?

WRONG! They predicted the collapse based on the conditions at the time. It is idiotic to think that someone could predict that a building will collapse 5 hours before it does and your willingness to believe it just proves you will believe anything.

I'm willing to believe that if an engineer looks at a building, consults with firefighting professionals like Chief Hayden, and concludes that 7WTC will collapse, he's more than likely going to be correct.

Imagine that. It collapsed.

So, was Chief Hayden lying?

 

[Justin39640]

The fire was not a threat to the building collapsing then or at any time. It had burned out and did not cause the collapse as NIST claims.


Word games. No one could predict a building collapse 5 hours in advance period.

And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008]

WRONG! They predicted the collapse based on the conditions at the time. It is idiotic to think that someone could predict that a building will collapse 5 hours before it does and your willingness to believe it just proves you will believe anything.

Why do you think that after you heat steel, under a load, it magically returns 100% to its original strength and condition? The moaning and creaking was from the overloading of the remaining intact structure. Broken parts typically don't creek enough to reverberate throughout and entire assembly. The building was obviously ********** early on. The were reporting it all afternoon.

Most likely, that engineer was also a fireman or was (hence why he was picked to run into a burning building). This is New York City we're talking about. These guys inspect buildings all the time. Old buildings falling apart, fire damages, etc, etc. They recognize, from experience, the signs of structure in serious trouble. His estimate was a gut-shot, based on experience, and he obviously knew his ****.

The only question that day was "is it safe to send men inside?" The answer was no. No one cared why it was unsafe at the time. Especially not to the degree that you seem to have expected them to.

 

[NoahFence]

Was he wrong or was he just lying?

Clearly "in on it"

(LOL - did you hear him say "leaning"?)

 

[Oz1976]

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.

Pentagon's airspace is not restricted. Flights from Reagan National routinely fly over it. It's an office building not a freaking fort.

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"...

Would you please read the 9/11 Commission Report, or watch "On Native Soil" to see the complete clusterf*ck that was communication between the FAA, NEADS and NORAD that day? We had 4 fighters in the air, 2 of which were unarmed unfortunately, and no shootdown order came until it was too late. Secondly, the only civilian domestic flight intercepted by our Air Defenses in the 20+ years prior to 9/11 was golfer Payne Stewarts Lear Jet which had suffered cabin depressurization and killed everyone on board. It took them over an hour to intercept his plane.

"According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, about an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT – see NTSB report on the crash) after ground controllers lost contact"

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.

What should he have done? Jumped up and said "Sorry kids, countries at war, gotta go!"? No, he had advisor's stationed across the room that he routinely looked up from the book to see what they were saying. They told him to remain calm while they worked to figure out what was going on and what to do. You can find several interviews with the Teacher and staff that were there. It was only 7-8 minutes and then they used a room in the school to start coordinating what to do. Bush incompetant? Probably. Criminal or complicit? No.

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.

Of course they knew something was going to happen soon. Where, when, how, no one knew. No one knew they were going to use airplane's in this manner on that day. No one allowed this to happen. Again, read the 911 Commission Report. Stop being a lazy follower of idiotic youtube videos and "friends" who are ignorant of facts.

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

Sigh

 

[Christopher7]

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.

You are trying to change the subject. That and the rest of your post has nothing to do with the point which is:
NIST said there was no water to fight the fire in WTC 7. That is not true.

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.

No, I know that pumps in relay are absolutely an option.

Bull! All you talked about was friction losses. That was an attempt to claim that there wasn't enough water to fight a fire on the 12th floor of WTC 7 - which is the point of this particular argument.

(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="][URL="http://www.marinefirefighting.com/Pages/Newsletters/Newsletter9.htm"]http://www.marinefirefighting.com/Pa...ewsletter9.htm[/URL][/FONT]

Yep. Point?

Are you really that dumb?

I have stated over and over what the point is:

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.

You tried to imply that friction losses would restrict how much water could get to the site while at the same time saying the fire boats delivered 38 million gallons in three days.

There was no shortage of water.

 

[Oz1976]

Because the "engineer" predicted that WTC 7 would collapse in 5 hours. The debris damage did NOT seriously weaken the building and had no significant effect on the collapse. At about 1:20, when he made that prediction, there were normal office fires on two floors. If you believe that someone could predict that WTC 7 would collapse 5 hours in advance at all, much given the actual conditions, you will believe anything you are spoon fed by the PTB, no matter how absurd.

The building was not leaning.

Hayden said there was a bulge at the SW corner between floors 10 and 13. He did NOT say the building was leaning.

Other firefighters did:

" Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me."

More firefighter accounts of WTC 7 damage: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

 

[DGM]

You are trying to change the subject. That and the rest of your post has nothing to do with the point which is:
NIST said there was no water to fight the fire in WTC 7. That is not true.


Bull! All you talked about was friction losses. That was an attempt to claim that there wasn't enough water to fight a fire on the 12th floor of WTC 7 - which is the point of this particular argument.


Are you really that dumb?

I have stated over and over what the point is:

You tried to imply that friction losses would restrict how much water could get to the site while at the same time saying the fire boats delivered 38 million gallons in three days.

There was no shortage of water.

Could you tell us again why WTC7 should require all this effort?

Why again should the FDNY risk more life to save it?

 

[King of the Americas]

And what would you have done?

Gotten to a Command Post as fast as I could...

 

[Oz1976]

I have stated many times that the data is mostly correct, it's their computer model and their conclusions that are fatally flawed.

Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.
No one at the scene said the building was leaning.
NIST did not say the building was leaning.

Yet you believe it was, based on what a firefighter 5 blocks away said.

Firefighters DID say that, it's been posted, twice now, it amazes me with your uber Google skills you've missed this.

 

[King of the Americas]

The country wasn't under attack THEN - that was after one crash. At that point, all they knew was that there was a terrible accident.

There's video of the President being told, "A second plane has hit the second tower, we are under attack.", after which he CONTINUED to remain there for some time...

 

[DGM]

Gotten to a Command Post as fast as I could...

For some reason I'm happy you're not in a position of importance. Would this include manning the anti-aircraft guns?

Do you watch a lot of "Rambo" movies?

 

[Oz1976]

There's video of the President being told, "A second plane has hit the second tower, we are under attack.", after which he CONTINUED to remain there for some time...

This has been answered, read my posts directed at you.

 

[A W Smith]

Gotten to a Command Post as fast as I could...

Command post?: At Booker elementary in Sarasota Florida? Is that somewhere between the Principals office and the Guidance office?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Booke...5,-95.677068&sspn=27.22791,56.513672&t=h&z=19

 

[A W Smith]

There's video of the President being told, "A second plane has hit the second tower, we are under attack.", after which he CONTINUED to remain there for some time...

some time? Between 9:03:02 the moment flight 175 impacted the south tower and 9:03: President Bush enters a classroom as part of his school visit? and 9:05: "After brief introductions to the Booker elementary students, President Bush is about to begin reading The Pet Goat with the students when Chief of Staff Andrew Card interrupts to whisper to the president, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."[10] The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students?? And 9:14: President Bush returned to a holding room commandeered by the Secret Service??

 

[Oz1976]

Command post?: At Booker elementary in Sarasota Florida? Is that somewhere between the Principals office and the Guidance office?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Booke...5,-95.677068&sspn=27.22791,56.513672&t=h&z=19

To be fair, CENTCOM was an hour north on I-75 to I-275 into Tampa from Sarasota at Macdill Airforce Base. He might have been able to get there in say 20-30 minutes if they flew in a helicopter to pick him up from the school. Not possible in Tampa traffic that early in the morning with a huge motorcade, which is how he was travelling that day to Booker.

Either way, they set up a command center in the school.