Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[triforcharity]

Also, don't forget that when it collapses, you've lost more men and equipment.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's sum up then:

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

Also, don't forget that when it collapses, you've lost more men and equipment.

listed that.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

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.

Charging the standpipes would add mass to the structure and pouring water on unstable floors could result in partial collapses.

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!

JD, I'm not sure I would include the item hilited just yet. Water supplies available to charge said riser(s) would appear to be minimal in light of the other arguments presented, and it would therefore seem that overloading the floor is arguable as well. Seems like the water would find its way to elevator shafts, pipe penetrations for plumbing, electrical, HVAC and the like. Also much of it would be converted to steam on the fire floors.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that no one has given solid evidence that it would be a real threat. Seems weak at the moment in light of the other much stronger arguments.

 

[jaydeehess]

JD, I'm not sure I would include the item hilited just yet. Water supplies available to charge said riser(s) would appear to be minimal in light of the other arguments presented, and it would therefore seem that overloading the floor is arguable as well. Seems like the water would find its way to elevator shafts, pipe penetrations for plumbing, electrical, HVAC and the like. Also much of it would be converted to steam on the fire floors.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that no one has given solid evidence that it would be a real threat. Seems weak at the moment in light of the other much stronger arguments.

OK, I managed to edit that out before the time limit. I was including it because Leftysargent had posted the arguement. However if its that iffy let's reject it.

 

[sylvan8798]

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

Clearly, again, making the point that the building was dangerous, regardless of the relationship between the damage and the ultimate collapse. There was, and is, no way of knowing what types of hazards FDNY would have encountered had they attempted to save it. In addition, the firefighting systems (sprinklers, standpipes, etc.) are connected directly to the structure, and the structure took a hell of a shock from being hit with debris. Elevator cars had dislodged, people had to climb over stuff, etc. Who knows what condition all the fire protection systems were in?

On another forum, a woman who worked for the Port Authority and was in WTC 1 when Flight 11 hit described descending the staircases there, where water was flowing down the stairs from broken pipes. Her story is one of those raw first person narratives which puts the ugly in the lies of the truthers.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Clearly, again, making the point that the building was dangerous, regardless of the relationship between the damage and the ultimate collapse. There was, and is, no way of knowing what types of hazards FDNY would have encountered had they attempted to save it. In addition, the firefighting systems (sprinklers, standpipes, etc.) are connected directly to the structure, and the structure took a hell of a shock from being hit with debris. Elevator cars had dislodged, people had to climb over stuff, etc. Who knows what condition all the fire protection systems were in?

On another forum, a woman who worked for the Port Authority and was in WTC 1 when Flight 11 hit described descending the staircases there, where water was flowing down the stairs from broken pipes. Her story is one of those raw first person narratives which puts the ugly in the lies of the truthers.

See my post 7823 above.

The part I hilited describes another way for the water to flow out of the areas with broken pipes that I hadn't previously included.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

OK, I managed to edit that out before the time limit. I was including it because Leftysargent had posted the arguement. However if its that iffy let's reject it.

Just to be clear, I don't reject the idea. I just don't think it's been fully thought through (well, IMHO anyway).

 

[triforcharity]

Delete duplicate

 

[triforcharity]

Just to be clear, I don't reject the idea. I just don't think it's been fully thought through (well, IMHO anyway).

Mr. Skinny,

I will agree with that. The added weight would have been negligable at best. COULD it have been a problem towards the END of 7WTC's fire? Possibly. But, how much of a problem.....not much IMHO.

 

[leftysergeant]

Mr. Skinny,

I will agree with that. The added weight would have been negligable at best. COULD it have been a problem towards the END of 7WTC's fire? Possibly. But, how much of a problem.....not much IMHO.

If the floor is not level, water would tend to pool in low spots, a lot of which would probbly be near the most damaged sections. Not where you want a few hundred gallons of something that weighs about 9 pounds per gallon.

 

[dafydd]

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

It was a daft movie,wasn't it?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

If the floor is not level, water would tend to pool in low spots, a lot of which would probbly be near the most damaged sections. Not where you want a few hundred gallons of something that weighs about 9 pounds per gallon.

Well, if the floor is already damaged from the fire and sagging so that pooling can occur, the weight of the water seems a much smaller consideration.

I don't think that the weight of water (had it been there) is something that shouldn't be considered, I just don't think it belongs in a summary of major points of the argument on the debunker side. After all, we are primarily arguing that what water supplies were available were in such short supply as to not make firefighting in WTC7 a sensible thing to do.

Including your argument in jaydeehess' list of major points is guilding the lily, so to speak.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, if the floor is already damaged from the fire and sagging so that pooling can occur, the weight of the water seems a much smaller consideration.

I don't think that the weight of water (had it been there) is something that shouldn't be considered, I just don't think it belongs in a summary of major points of the argument on the debunker side. After all, we are primarily arguing that what water supplies were available were in such short supply as to not make firefighting in WTC7 a sensible thing to do.

As jaydee pointed out, just charging the standpipes adds a lot of weight, thus stress on an already damaged frame. And let's not forget the weight of the now-charged sprinkler lines hung from the undersides of the floor slabs.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

As jaydee pointed out, just charging the standpipes adds a lot of weight, thus stress on an already damaged frame. And let's not forget the weight of the now-charged sprinkler lines hung from the undersides of the floor slabs.

Lefty, I was hoping you wouldn't take any of my criticism of your idea personally, but perhaps you have.

I think if you go back and read my previous posts, you'll see I do not dismiss your idea, but you are speculating about an event that did not occur. True, if it had occured, as in Christoper7's fantasy, then your point could be entirely valid, but since it didn't occur I was giving jaydeehess my opinion as to whether your idea should be included as a "major point".

 

[JohnG]

Google "Serpico"

Don't have to. I read the Peter Maas book, saw the movie, watched interviews with the real Frank Serpico and saw a documentary about him. I'm willing to bet a not insignificant portion of the forum members here are similarly acquainted with his story.

Now, if you are referring specifically to his comments regarding 9/11, I'd suggest search terms a little more specific like, I don't know, "Serpico 9/11"? When I did so I found an essay he wrote in 2003 where he talked about foreign policy missteps that led to 9/11 and the erosion of personal liberties following 9/11. I also found a speech where he somewhat obliquely expressed skepticism of the "official story". That is his right and in any case unless he was more explicit about he believes happened and didn't happen on 9/11 in some later speech, essay or interview, I don't see the relevance in you incessantly citing him.

Can you spell "Serpico" ?

If you want proof, read what Serpico has to say.

Idée fixe much? Sounds like you just discovered him last week. He is quite famous you know, at least to most Americans born before 1990. "read what Serpico has to say"? Can you be more specific? Does Serpico debunk the 9/11 official story somewhere? If so I'd love to read it. I'd certainly value his opinion on the subject over yours (no offense). Instead of entreating everyone to "Google Serpico" though, could you please provide a specific link?

If it's the latter, it does NOT make the firefighters accomplices, it makes them victims like Serpico and the rest of us.

"like Serpico and the rest of us"? You're equating your "victim"-hood not only with the FDNY on 9/11 but with with Frank Serpico? Delusions of grandeur and persecution in one neat package! You are comparing yourself to a man who was shot in the line of duty, almost died and had his entire life thrown into turmoil? A man who didn't just grumble about the corruption he uncovered but actively crusaded against it? The man is a genuine hero. You? Less so (again, no offense intended).

Google: Serpico

I'll grant you this: "Google Serpico" is fun to say. Oh, go on, try it.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Don't have to. I read the Peter Maas book, saw the movie, watched interviews with the real Frank Serpico and saw a documentary about him. I'm willing to bet a not insignificant portion of the forum members here are similarly acquainted with his story.

Read the book, saw the movie, watched some interviews. Don't remember if I saw the documentary.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.



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?


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 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?


,,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.

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

As usual all the woulda coulda shoulda is nothing more than after the fact, hindsight blather to ignore/obscure the truth.

Some government official(s) let it be known that WTC7 was going to collapse and everything progressed naturally from that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX1bqXO_3A

 

[Animal]

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

As usual all the woulda coulda shoulda is nothing more than after the fact, hindsight blather to ignore/obscure the truth.

Some government official(s) let it be known that WTC7 was going to collapse and everything progressed naturally from that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX1bqXO_3A

As usual, troofers have no evidence to back up their claims, just willful ignorance of the facts

 

[Travis]

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

As usual all the woulda coulda shoulda is nothing more than after the fact, hindsight blather to ignore/obscure the truth.

Some government official(s) let it be known that WTC7 was going to collapse and everything progressed naturally from that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX1bqXO_3A

They also thought two other towers might collapse that didn't. So what's your point?

 

[sylvan8798]

As usual all the woulda coulda shoulda is nothing more than after the fact, hindsight blather to ignore/obscure the truth.

So profoundly stated. Why not listen to your own words?