Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Justin39640]

They delivered over a million gallons a day, so yes. If you can't figure that out you're a few pickets shy of a fence.

It is obvoius that the water was delivered at high pressure to the site but in addition to that I gave these numbers several pages back.

Fire pumps [in pump trucks] are designed to perform as follows:
100% of rated capacity at 150 psi net pump pressure
70% of rated capacity at 200 psi net pump pressure
50% of rated capacity at 250 psi net pump pressure
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm

The floors were approximately 12 feet.
12 x 12 = 144 x .5 = 72 psi loss
A 1000 gmp pump truck, operating at 200 psi, can deliver 700 gmp at 128 psi to the 12th floor.

Standpipes come of a manifold and can be isolated.

Yes. How could you have missed that?

Go back and read my posts starting on pg 68.

You assume there was enough water pressure to feed those pump trucks all the time. Perhaps you should add: "*under ideal conditions".

 

[triforcharity]

It's a stupid question because you know that the TM says that WTC 7 was a CD. I have said so on this forum many times.

Bt yet, that is NOT what the data that NIST has presented, that you AGREE with, that you claim is CORRECT.

Now how can that be? You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Christopher7]

It's a stupid question because you know that the TM says that WTC 7 was a CD. I have said so on this forum many times.

Bt yet, that is NOT what the data that NIST has presented, that you AGREE with, that you claim is CORRECT.
Now how can that be?

The data in the final report proves WTC 7 was a CD. You refuse to accept that. No worries.

Subject shift noted.

The data in the NIST report clearly shows that the fire NIST claims started the collapse, did NOT start the collapse.

This quote from the final report makes it clear that there was water available to fight the fires in WTC 7.

"The Chief Officer left the building and went to the FDNY Command Post and reported to the Command Post Chief that he believed the fires inside WTC 7 could be extinguished. Thus, the Chief assigned with firefighting tasks was sent back to extinguish the fires."

 

[sylvan8798]

What brought the building down? Woodworm?

Carpenter ants. That's why he's an expert, eh?

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

vol·u·ble/ˈvälyəbəl/
Adjective: Speaking or spoken incessantly and fluently.

That's what happens when you're blessed with being right.

 

[sylvan8798]

From the NIST report.....
As they were leaving the building through a service door in the southeast corner, glass was breaking from overhead. After it stopped, they exited and saw that the fires on the south face had moved to the east face and were moving north. They reported that flames were coming out of the windows, and that the windows were breaking out sequentially in groups of two or three every 15 min to 20 min. The rooms appeared to have reached a flashover condition,........................
At approximately 1:00 p.m., an OEM staff member, a FDNY Deputy Chief, and a FDNY Battalion Chief entered WTC 7 to further evaluate conditions. The OEM staff member reported that they entered WTC 7 through the door near the southeast corner on West Broadway and proceeded up the B stairway on the east side. They stopped at the 3rd floor level. The atrium was filled with dust but had no significant debris. As they observed the area, they heard the building creaking.............
At the 5* floor, they moved to the A stairway and proceeded up. On the 8* or 9* floor, one of the group said he saw two elevator cars ejected from their shafts and in the hallway. Looking past the elevators, they could see a gaping hole in the south face from around the 6th to the 9th floors. They could see one floor below and two to three floors above that location. A lot of the core walls were destroyed, and one individual reported that he saw columns hanging from the floor above. They did not observe any fires at this time on the 8* floor or 9th floor, but the interviewee reported that they could hear fires burning well above where they were standing. Also, they continued to hear creaking noises in the building. As the FDNY Officers continued their inspection of WTC 7, they heard a loud noise, and a Chief decided that they should evacuate the building.....................
When a Chief Officer got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were exiting WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse.

In my opinion, considering what happened earlier in the day, and what happened later, the NYFD not only made the correct choice, they made the ONLY choice.

J, Mary, and Joseph. Those guys had more guts than these Truther nutjobs have all put together.

I once had to go into a place which the owners didn't want to demolish, but which was very unstable and unsafe due to neglect and decay. It was only 2 or 3 stories, and wood framed, but it was very alarming to be in there, even with NO fire or creaking. I can't even imagine going into WTC 7 that morning.

C7, whatever your point is here, you are WAY out of your element.

Dream on.

ETA:

Yes, there were fires on floors 7 and 12. These fires burned about 20 to 30 minutes in any location before burning out.

You do realize that you are arguing the FDNY should/could have spent resources on fires that were putting themselves out, don't you?

 

[triforcharity]

Two points I want to make before going to bed.

Chris, I want you to read this.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

Page 356, midway down. It starts with " At approximately 1:15pm-1:30pm" and follows from there.

Also, in 7WTC, the standpipe system and the sprinkler system were one system, unlike in 1&2WTC, where the sprinklers were a single system, and the standpipes were a single system. Meaning if the sprinkler system was damaged in 7WTC, the standpipe system was damaged also.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-4B Fire Suppression.pdf


Now, why do you think that might be a problem?

I'm going to research it more, and comment further on this tomorrow. Get to studying.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Was he supposed to have jumped up and fled for the exit?

He got the word from Cheney to sit tight.

 

[Travis]

The 'fighting' doesn't happen at a Command Post...

You think it is better to be with a croup of children, as the U.S. is BEING attacked, rather than being in direct communication with the JC's...?

I am glad YOU aren't in a position of importance.

And what exactly is a President supposed to do at this command post? In the event of an attack the President has a limited role in what happens.

I mean unless you think that presidents should be micromanaging exactly what jets are in the air and what armaments they have on board.

 

[leftysergeant]

The data in the final report proves WTC 7 was a CD. You refuse to accept that. No worries.

Not to anybody who knows the first thing about fighting fires in steel structures, it doesn't. And don't get smart-alecky and claim that Tri and I are not veteran fire fighters., Yyou are not qualified to make that judgement. Everything that you say shows a dangerous lack of understanding of what was going on. Did you notice that as I was typing a responce asking you when you thought this mysatical water was available on site, 000063 was typing the same question.

Even a non-fire-fighter can tell that you have no bloody clue what you are talking about and are just confabulating when you make catregorical statements about how fires are supposed to be fought.

One can only conclude that you are one of the more extreme examples of a troll to ever join this discussion.

The data in the NIST report clearly shows that the fire NIST claims started the collapse, did NOT start the collapse.

Only to those who have no clue what the report says because they know nothing about the behavior of steel in a fire.

This quote from the final report makes it clear that there was water available to fight the fires in WTC 7.

"The Chief Officer left the building and went to the FDNY Command Post and reported to the Command Post Chief that he believed the fires inside WTC 7 could be extinguished. Thus, the Chief assigned with firefighting tasks was sent back to extinguish the fires."

We still do not know that there was enough water because the man was never able to hook up a line and try it.

Further, the fact that the fires in the pile continued burning for a couple months proves that there was not enough water on the site to drench it.

You have shown yourself totally unqualified to pontificate on fire fighting tactiics and techniques.

 

[leftysergeant]

And what exactly is a President supposed to do at this command post? In the event of an attack the President has a limited role in what happens.

I mean unless you think that presidents should be micromanaging exactly what jets are in the air and what armaments they have on board.

It was probably better for the country that he was not in the way. Would have probably been better yet had his merry morons all been incapacitated for a while.

I have never seen any sign that any of them knew what they were doing, which leads me to wonder how anybody could have thought that they set this thing up.

See, here's the thing: If you are bright enough to stage the most amazingly complex false-flag operation of all time and keep the secret from leaking out, you should be able to conduct the military operations that follow it with such stagggering prowess that the adoring public would bow to your slightest wish, confident that you will always be there to protect them.

And it took how many years to off Osama?

Twoofers know about as much about military science as they do about fire science.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Was he supposed to have jumped up and fled for the exit?

On this small point, I have to say, I agree with KotA. Bush should, on hearing the news, have stood up, apologised briefly to the children, and said that something important had happened that needed him as President to deal with it. He should then have calmly left the room to consult with his retinue and decide what to do next. Instead, he acted like a rabbit in the headlights, and although it's unlikely he could have done anything useful in the eight minutes it took him to figure out how to react, it made him look extremely stupid, unprepared and easily derailed.

It also made it fairly clear that he was utterly shocked and surprised at what happened, which doesn't exactly support the claim that he was one of the people behind it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

On another point, though, I've seldom seen as classic an example of the Mark of Woo as we've seen from KotA here. It took less than a day to go from:

Could someone point me to the 'reason' the Pentagon didn't suffer broader 'wider' damage?

via:

I'd say I grazed the top of the whole 9/11 investigation, and I really don't care to dig into it. I spent about a half an hour playing halo 3 with this guy from new york who was only too willing to talk about what HE thought about it. He said things I wanted to check, so I came here...THE place to find the answer to anything to be skeptical about.

to the rather more dogmatic stance that:

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.

and finally to the declaration that:

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

It's a remarkably quick transition from "I don't know much about 9/11, but I just have this one question..." to "**** you, I'll believe what I want to even though I don't know jack **** about the subject."

KotA, the truth is that you really don't know much about all this, as you reveal every time you post. In that context, I'm almost pleased to see how strongly you support the conspiracist view of events, because it's a superb demonstration of how that view is rooted purely in ignorance, and can't be taken seriously by anyone who allows themself to become well-informed.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

On this small point, I have to say, I agree with KotA. Bush should, on hearing the news, have stood up, apologised briefly to the children, and said that something important had happened that needed him as President to deal with it. He should then have calmly left the room to consult with his retinue and decide what to do next. Instead, he acted like a rabbit in the headlights, and although it's unlikely he could have done anything useful in the eight minutes it took him to figure out how to react, it made him look extremely stupid, unprepared and easily derailed.

It also made it fairly clear that he was utterly shocked and surprised at what happened, which doesn't exactly support the claim that he was one of the people behind it.

Dave

Yup. I suppose his stonewalling against an investigation was so he could recover from the headlights.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yup. I suppose his stonewalling against an investigation was so he could recover from the headlights.

No, most likely it was because he was afraid the investigation would make him look like an even bigger idiot. As it turned out, there were enough people to share the blame without it getting to him, but he couldn't know that in advance. Of course, if he'd been a conspirator, he'd probably have set up a biased investigation as part of the plan, so he wouldn't have needed to fight against one and then look weak again by giving in. Basically, evidence that Bush was unprepared for 9/11 and its aftermath tends not to support the claim that he was part of planning it.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

I don't understand why y'all are debating details of pumps and hoses and water volumes, and doing math on pressure, heights and flows.

Why?

The FDNY decides on that day and on the spot, amid the greatest desaster ever faced by any US Fire Department, after two skyscrapers had already collapsed, after hundreds of firemen were already dead, after water supplies were already severed, after building 7 had already sustained glaring damages to its support structure, after it was already burning on several floors, after fire chiefs and their teams had inspected the building, after it had been completely evacuated, after it already showed signs of being increasingly structurally compromised (creaking and what not), that
A) it was not safe to even enter the building
B) water supply was a huge problem
C) lives could be saved elsewhere
that fighting fires in WTC7 was not a priority high enough to risk any more lives and give up rescue and containment operations elsewhere.

Whatever C7 is arguing for, the consequence can only be one of these two:

1. C7 asserts that the FDNY chiefs and crews were utterly incompetent
2. C7 asserts that the FDNY was actively and knowingly involved in the conspiracy to CD building 7, and by extension in the murder of 2500+, including hundreds of their own men

Y'all should not ask C7 for some math - that is idle claptrap and a distraction. Y'all should ask him to state clearly and unequivocally if he believes that the FDNY is full of imbeciles, or full of mass murderers. We should then invite Chris Sarns on a trip to New York City to discuss his ideas with the local authorities, and press him to present his evidence there. Otherwise we must conclude that Chris Sarns is either okay with the saftey of the biggest city in the country being in the hands of imbeciles, or with murderers running around free.

Everything else is inconsequential.

 

[R.Mackey]

Whatever C7 is arguing for, the consequence can only be one of these two:

1. C7 asserts that the FDNY chiefs and crews were utterly incompetent
2. C7 asserts that the FDNY was actively and knowingly involved in the conspiracy to CD building 7, and by extension in the murder of 2500+, including hundreds of their own men

[...]

Everything else is inconsequential.

Yup. And welcome to five years ago, if not longer.

Five years!

 

[Christopher7]

Two points I want to make before going to bed.

Chris, I want you to read this.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf

Page 356, midway down. It starts with " At approximately 1:15pm-1:30pm" and follows from there.

I have read that several times but I read it again in light of this debate.

Basis for "fire on 6 floors"
1-9 pg 301 [pdf pg 345] a Chief Officer reassessed the building again and determined that fires appeared to be burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions

1-9 pg 302 [pdf pg 346]
At approximately 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., the FDNY Chief Officer in charge of operations at WTC 7 recommended to his Commanding Officer that they should give up on efforts to save WTC 7. It was reported that the group of FDNY Chiefs who discussed the building conditions and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires formed the following conclusions concerning operations inside WTC 7.

The following is a third hand assessment. It's someone at NIST interpreting what someone [years later] reported the chiefs used as a basis for their decision not to fight the fires.

1) The WTC 7 building had sustained damage from debris falling into it, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

2) The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

That is not true. The fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30 were NOT large fires and they had burned out before 1:00 p.m. - 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
The group that made the decision not to fight the fires reported no fires on floors 8 or 9.
1-9 pg 300 [pdf pg 344]

At 1:15 to 1:30 p.m., the only fires were on floors 7 and 12.

Failure to fight the fires in WTC 7 resulted in all search and rescue being stopped for three hours. If the fires were a factor, as NIST is claiming, then WTC 7 should have been priority one.


3) There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

At 12:47 p.m. there was water available.

* * * * *
I will get to the sprinklers and standpipes tomorrow.

 

[Christopher7]

Whatever C7 is arguing for, the consequence can only be one of these two:

1. C7 asserts that the FDNY chiefs and crews were utterly incompetent
2. C7 asserts that the FDNY was actively and knowingly involved in the conspiracy to CD building 7, and by extension in the murder of 2500+, including hundreds of their own men

Typical blatantly false assumption/accusation. In a recent post on this thread I said they erred on the side of caution or they are victims like all of us.

Yup. And welcome to five years ago, if not longer.

Five years!

Four years ago, you were staunchly defending the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires. You were wrong on both. http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

 

[excaza]

So, if you admit they were erring on the side of caution, why the **** are you questioning why they didn't fight the fire?