Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[twinstead]

Christopher - what makes you think you know what damage he was concerned about?

Kind of makes it hypocritical that he would say to us, "Y'all are just stating your opinions" in this situation, doesn't it.

 

[NoahFence]

so they pulled the operation to concentrate on other buildings and the rescue effort.

 

[twinstead]

Well, then. Bring me a shrubbery!

 

[Animal]

Jesus talking about not getting it....

So who WAS 'in on it' then, Chris? It's almost as if you think we are debating this issue in the Halls of Congress and not in a relatively obscure internet forum.

You should take your earth shattering revelation that there was plenty of water to fight the WTC7 fires-- and therefore the fact it was decided to redirect every resource available to save lives in other areas and let the unoccupied WTC7 collapse is suspicious--to the NY Times. I'm sure they'll run with it.

LOL

What is comical is the insistence that the NIST report is "fatally flawed" yet that is what he uses as bible for quotes.

The title of the NIST report is STRUCTURAL FIRE RESPONSE AND PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 7

What is also stupid is the stance that the NYFD should have fought the fires in the WTC 7 because the damage to the building did not cause the collapse....a fact that took several years to determine. The NYFD made not only the correct choice on 911, they made the only real choice.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The damage he was concerned with had nothing to do with the collapse which began at the other end of the building.

As somebody once said, "You don't "know that". No one said so in any of the interviews that I know of. Y'all are just stating your opinions."

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

He had just seen the towers come down. He is not a structural engineer and he was completely wrong.

Banging the same drum - the building was dangerous. It was damaged, parts of it were bulging, loads were being transferred in ways far from the design intent, it was making creaking noises. The NIST report did NOT say that the damage to the structure would not have caused further failure(s) eventually, just that it didn't precipitate the collapse that afternoon.

YOU are not a structural engineer and YOU are completely wrong. And YOU were not there.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Chris, before I address you other posts, please read this and tell me what it means to you.

 

[dafydd]

YOU are not a structural engineer and YOU are completely wrong. And YOU were not there.

If only the building had been made of wood. Chris7 could have given us chapter and verse.

 

[triforcharity]

Google "Serpico".

Yep, and what does this have to do with 9/11? Oh, right, nothing.

 

[triforcharity]

You don't "know that". No one said so in any of the interviews that I know of. Y'all are just stating your opinions.

Found one more:
10:06:01 10-84, Engine 271/E 6, (left Command Post at West and Vesey Streets when WTC 1 collapsed, supplied water to standpipe Siamese at Verizon Building, extinguished fires around Verizon bldg.)

And what did the VERIZON BUILDING have to do with fires in 7WTC?

 

[Animal]

Hey Chris, before I address you other posts, please read this and tell me what it means to you.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/00000000000000000000000000000001.png[/qimg]

That doesn't matter.......everyone knows that Chris is smarter than the entire NYFD that was on scene

 

[Clayton Moore]

Christopher7, their questions and comments have little relevance. You can liken their blurbing to what happens before you pin the tail on the donkey.

 

[sylvan8798]

Christopher7, their questions and comments have little relevance. You can liken their blurbing to what happens before you pin the tail on the donkey.

You become close to an donkey's behind?

What?

 

[twinstead]

Christopher7, their questions and comments have little relevance. You can liken their blurbing to what happens before you pin the tail on the donkey.

If I were Chris, I wouldn't much care to have you on my side, Clayton, oh Ye Of Ludicrous Theories

 

[jaydeehess]

You started off OK but went into deep denial. He was completely wrong. The damage he was concerned with had nothing to do with the collapse which began at the other end of the building. You know that yet you still manage to block it out and make statements like that.

Not at all Chris. There is ample evidence NOW that the damage he saw to the structure was not enough to cause its glbal collapse but AT THAT TIME he did not and was more likely worried about a partial collapse. GIVEN that he does not know for sure but that it looks very bad he keeps his men out of the structure. Now its been known for FFs to ignore direct orders and enter structures but this is a rare occurance, there was no one in WTC 7 that needed rescueing, AND (great big AND) both Hayden and every other FF in Manhattan and for that matter most in the entire country, had just watched as whole companies of their brothers had lost their lives.

In a risk assessment view its simply very much not worth sending men and equipment into a structure that is likely unsafe when there is no pressing need to do so. OTOH there were other fire situations which could be fought from street level such as the vehicle fires throughout the area and WTC 6.

That does not make it so.

So you are now stating that perhaps NIST authors (face it we are talking about people despite your apparent attempt to paste NIST as a faceless machine) completely madfe up the interview or completely misrepresented or made up the points discussed in an interview?

I asled you if any fire Chief has come forth to state that the decision to end operations was not represented correctly in the NIST report. You have failed to answer and I know your only recvourse will be to say that there was possible coerscion to keep them quite (for 11 years now), which in other words means you simply have NO BASIS for disputing the NIST comments about this interview. Have you attempted a FOIA request for the interview and who was in attendance? If so then what have you found? If not, why not, after all would it not allow you to actually KNOW something rather than continue speculating all in a vain search to find lies in the NIST reports?

Google "Serpico".

Ok, once again then ARE YOU SAYING THAT threats were made?
If you have no evidence whatsoever that any were made then say so. If you have any basis at all upon which to base such a contention about threats and coerscion of NYFD fire Chiefs then by all means lay it out here.

I have answered that question many times. Read my recent responses on this thread.

I am not on the forum as much in the summer(its SUMMER!) so perhaps you could maybe give me a page number or post number?

Possibly.

,,and its possible that monkeys at typewriters could produce"MacBeth"
Once again DO YOU HAVE ANY evidence or reason to believe that threats or other coerscion was used against NYFD fire Chiefs or other NYFD personnel??

Something other than your own desire for this to have een the case Chris. Your personel incredulity is not evidence of anything except perhaps of your political worldview.

 

[jaydeehess]

Christopher7, their questions and comments have little relevance. You can liken their blurbing to what happens before you pin the tail on the donkey.

Your particular contentions and speculations are born of such unwavering ignorance you make Chris look like Richard Feynman.

Your ignorance and steadfast adherence to your personal ignorance seem to prevent you from adressing any questions posed directly to you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Kind of makes it hypocritical that he would say to us, "Y'all are just stating your opinions" in this situation, doesn't it.

Indeed , he is also stating his opinion that the Chiefs might possibly have been threatened in
a) ordering the pulling away from WTC 7
b) keeping quite for 11 years about this.

In fact if there were no threats or coerscion then his entire line of speculation about WTC 7 falls apart. That, or several Chiefs have to actually be in on the plot, something Chris seem loath to say.

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't "know that". No one said so in any of the interviews that I know of. Y'all are just stating your opinions.

Found one more:
10:06:01 10-84, Engine 271/E 6, (left Command Post at West and Vesey Streets when WTC 1 collapsed, supplied water to standpipe Siamese at Verizon Building, extinguished fires around Verizon bldg.)

Is Engine 271/E 6 a pumper truck? A tanker?
They began operations to put out fires in the vicinity of the building next door to WTC 7 at 10 am. When did they finsih doing that? Were was the water coming from to do it? On board water? If so how much was left afterwards.

,, and ,,, what does this have to do with WTC 7?

You have been good at pointing out that water was available in the area. How much? What other operations were in progress? How much of this available water was being used to put out fires that endangered lives and other structures (i.e. the vehicles fires on several streets)?

You are desparately searching for reasons to call the authors of the NIST report liars and co-conspirators in mass murder. What drives you in this regard?

 

[leftysergeant]

There is another factor to consider regarding putting water into the stand pipes.

Water weighs a lot. A building that was already creaking in strange ways would have suddenly had to bear TONS of weigh, unevenly distributed.

As soon as the standpipes had been charged, the automatic sprinkler system would have started dumping tons of water on floors which may have not been propry connected to the walls any more.

I do not care to hear any argument about how you can isolate the damaged parts of the sprinkler system. Nobody knew exactly which parts were damaged or even whether they could reach the cut-off valves for those sections.

Remember Jennings and Hess? They could not find their way out of the building. Some of the egress routes were destroyed or blocked. This means that fire fighting personnel could also not ENTER by these routes.

The simple fact is that FDNY coulld only know a few simple facts without examining the structure in detail. What they could determine looked really, I mean really bad, and fighting the fires could have actually made it worse.

On top of that, they had other more important things to worry about. Rescue operations and covering exposures always takes precendence over saving an empty building.

As for the relative importance of any of the structures, WTC7 was pretty much useless as far as recovery from the disaster. Rotten Rudy's bunker would not be functioning for some time had they saved it from collapse, nor should it have. It was about as useful as a cod piece on a woman's swimsuit and as poorly designed. The post office was full of Class A fuels and much of it was in the form ofo important documents that needed to be distributed. Some of those documents, seeing as how this was in the financial district would have been crucial to some people's and corporations' ability to survive the ecconomic chaos that everyone assumed would follow. The building was in no immediate danger of collapse and the fires had not spread there. It was, thus, a primary objective of FDNY to see that it did not.

Equipment and records housed in the Verizon Building would be crucial to getting the telecommunications systems back up and running after the massive damage to those systems resulting from the collapse of the towers and their antenna arrays. The Verizon Building was damaged and subject to catch fire if any burning debris wafting about the streets got blown in through any of those gaping holes that had been torn open in the collapses but was, as far as anyone could see, not likely to collapse. There was, thus, a real need to preserve that structure and no reason not to. This was an exposure to be covered with all rerasonable resources. Thus, there needed to be water available to fill the standpipes and to extinguish spot fires nearby at street level.

That takes a lot of water.

Would you care to show me that there would have been enough water to do all of this, plus fight the fires in WTC7 and to compensate for the wastage from those broken sprinkler lines that could not be isolated, and that the damaged floors of WTC 7 could have withstood the weight of all the water that would have been poured on them? And could you tell us how FDNY was supposed to know without having seen them whether those floors would have stood up to the weight?

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's sum up then:

To fight the several fires in this 47 storey building you would need
X number of FFs inside the building to :
- assess the damage to the building and the standpipe system
- assess the plan(s) to attack the fire(s)
- to man the valves to direct water to places where these plans could begin
- to have manpower and equipment (both in short supply at the time) on the ground to supply pressure to the water supply going into the building(which may require taking water from other operations in the vicinity of WTC 7)
- to conduct several operations on several floors to combat these fires (and still manage to keep open some means of egress)

It is most probably that there would be water(pressure) wasteage due to unknown or unseen pipe/sprinkler damages.

There was no possibility of loss of life in WTC 7 unless FFs entered the building.

There was a significant danger of at least a partial collapse and thus loss of life in or next to WTC 7, due to the loss of structure members on the south and west of the structure.

There were other more immediate priorities for the available water.

All this just to.....? Save a structure while putting at risk the severely depleted and traumatised ranks of the NYFD?

Sure Chris.... tell you what,,, go, join a NYFD company (if you can pass the physical) and if the occassion arises you can be the zero,,, um hero!