Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Christopher7]

No, you are missing the point.
We are not talking about water availability
We are talking about water availability for WTC7
And that discussion does involve talking about priority.

Mikey T and Oystein. Go back and read post 8174 until you understand what it says.

 

[dafydd]

Mikey T and Oystein. Go back and read post 8174 until you understand what it says.

When you retire from carpentry you will have more time to devote to this.

 

[leftysergeant]

Mikey T and Oystein. Go back and read post 8174 until you understand what it says.

The problem is with the writer's grasp of the subject matter, not with the readers' comprehension.

The post is about 75% balderdash and 20% gobbledygook with a heavy splash of ignorance.

 

[Mikey T]

1A pg 57
"Due to the focus on rescuing people trapped in the debris field, providing aid to the injured, and the loss of water in the hydrant system, FDNY was not able to consider the possibility of fighting the fires in WTC 7 until approximately 1:00 p.m."
In other words, at about 1:00 p.m., they had the water and personnel to to fight the fires in WTC 7. At 1:00 p.m. the only fires were on floors 7 and 12.

By 1:00 p.m., all the buildings in the area had no doubt been evacuated so the argument about not going into an unoccupied building is crap. Firefighters go into unoccupied buildings to put out fires.

It was another hour and a half before they gave the order to pull back

At approximately 2:30 p.m., FDNY gave the order to forgo firefighting activity and for personnel to withdraw to a safe distance from the building.

Ok. I read it again. I highlighted the key words for you. Now take a deep breath. Ready? Now focus on those highlighted words and explain what they mean to you.

 

[Christopher7]

The problem is with the writer's grasp of the subject matter, not with the readers' comprehension.

The post is about 75% balderdash and 20% gobbledygook with a heavy splash of ignorance.

Most intelligent post. I like the way you avoided addressing the point.

You argued about priorities.
They had enough personnel to cover the "priorities".

The point, in case you forgot, is that NIST said they did not have sufficient water to fight the fire.

There was enough water.

You, TFC and NIST are wrong.

As I have been saying all along, the fire chiefs did not say that they based their decision on priorities. They did not say base their decision on availability of water - yet you and TFC argue ad nauseam about water and priorities. You just like to argue.

When you run out of arguments, you make up clever insults or change the subject or move the goal posts.

This is occasionally informative infotainment. Thankyouverymuch

 

[Myriad]

The point remains very simple. Sufficient water to fight the Building 7 fire was not available. The water that was available was needed for other more urgent uses.

The fire companies' assessments of the situation, at the time and in retrospect, are consistent on those points. (No one else's assessments matter in the slightest.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[twinstead]

(No one else's assessments matter in the slightest.)

This is key. C7's opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant and can be legitimately ignored.

 

[sylvan8798]

You, TFC and NIST are wrong.

And where does this get you? Where do you go from "NIST said something that was wrong"? What are the implications? the manifestations? Why do you keep refusing to answer the question "WHAT IS YOUR POINT?"????

 

[dafydd]

This is key. C7's opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant and can be legitimately ignored.

But if you need a new kitchen table he's your man.

 

[dafydd]

And where does this get you? Where do you go from "NIST said something that was wrong"? What are the implications? the manifestations? Why do you keep refusing to answer the question "WHAT IS YOUR POINT?"????

I would like to know that too,together with a resume of what C7 thinks happened on 911.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The point remains very simple. Sufficient water to fight the Building 7 fire was not available. The water that was available was needed for other more urgent uses.

The fire companies' assessments of the situation, at the time and in retrospect, are consistent on those points. (No one else's assessments matter in the slightest.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Did Cheney put out an out of order proclamation on the Hudson?

 

[twinstead]

God of the Gaps ROCKS

 

[twinstead]

Did Cheney put out an out of order proclamation on the Hudson?

Why waste the resources fighting a fire in an unoccupied building that was declared unstable? How many times does that question need to be asked? All you are doing is trying to instill doubt and insert some ludicrous claim in its place. It's a simple debate technique, nothing more nothing less.

It's what people with untenable positions HAVE to do.

 

[beachnut]

1A pg 57
"Due to the focus on rescuing people trapped in the debris field, providing aid to the injured, and the loss of water in the hydrant system, FDNY was not able to consider the possibility of fighting the fires in WTC 7 until approximately 1:00 p.m."
In other words, at about 1:00 p.m., they had the water and personnel to to fight the fires in WTC 7. At 1:00 p.m. the only fires were on floors 7 and 12.

By 1:00 p.m., all the buildings in the area had no doubt been evacuated so the argument about not going into an unoccupied building is crap. Firefighters go into unoccupied buildings to put out fires.

It was another hour and a half before they gave the order to pull back

At approximately 2:30 p.m., FDNY gave the order to forgo firefighting activity and for personnel to withdraw to a safe distance from the building.

You have no point, you have no goal, you have failed going on 10 years. How many firemen had been killed by terrorist actions by 1 pm? Got a clue yet? How will you prove your delusional inside job claptrap? Got some evidence after 9 years? Do you have a claim?

 

[NoahFence]

They had enough personnel to cover the "priorities".

Why is this not getting through your thick skull?
YES they had enough to cover the "priorities"

WTC 7 was NOT a priority

So....?

 

[NoahFence]

As I have been saying all along, the fire chiefs did not say that they based their decision on priorities. They did not say base their decision on availability of water - yet you and TFC argue ad nauseam about water and priorities. You just like to argue.

Why do you HAVE to be right? I mean, everybody, and I mean everybody on the PLANET has been wrong about something. Why are you so different that you HAVE to be right? Just stop it! You're telling firefighters how to do their job, in the worst circumstance possible, with 10 rule 10 years of hindsight!

The audacity.

 

[Myriad]

Did Cheney put out an out of order proclamation on the Hudson?

Whether he did or not, sufficient water to fight the Building 7 fire was not available. The water that was available was needed for other more urgent uses.

The fire companies' assessments of the situation, at the time and in retrospect, are consistent on those points.

No one else's assessments matter in the slightest.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[000063]

The point, in case you forgot, is that NIST said they did not have sufficient water to fight the fire.

There was enough water.

You, TFC and NIST are wrong.

I have asked you several times how much water would've been "enough", yet you refuse to answer or even acknowledge the question. I'd even accept a rough number, just to get that on the record.

This is not "speculation", or irrelevant. You claim that there was "enough" water, yet refuse to provide an actual number. And no, "a million gallons in three days" is entirely irrelevant to how much would be "enough", nor is it even relevant to how much was available to fight the WTC 7 fire between when it was started and when it collapsed, which was less than 12 hours.

Also, your insistence on NIST being wrong as the only subject is an attempted end-run around the immediate consequences of your assertion; the FDNY were incompetent, were fooled &/sabotaged by the real culprits, or lied. Since all of those are impossible, you ignore it entirely.

Those aren't the actions of a skeptic.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST 1-9 Page 300
"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 3rt floor level. The atrium was filled with dust but had no significant debris. As they observed the area, they heard the building creaking. Debris was piled up on the Vesey Street side between Columns 17 and 22. They checked the 4th and 5* floors and did not see much damage from their viewing location. 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 9tt 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. They also met a Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building, and he reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7* or 8* floor. He indicated that the stairway he was in was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside 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"

Only the willfully ignorant and terminally stupid believe that fire fighting efforts should have been continued in WTC 7

This is an interesting paragraph for several reasons.
"They did not observe any fires at this time on the 8th floor or 9th floor"
This was about 1:15 to 1:30 p.m.
The fire on floor 8 first appeared on the north face at about 3:40 p.m.
The fire on floor 9 first appeared on the north face shortly before 4:00 p.m.

If you refuse to consider arson then you are in denial.


"they continued to hear creaking noises in the building . . . they heard a loud noise, and a Chief decided that they should evacuate the building. They also met a Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building, and he reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.[1] He indicated that the stairway he was in was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building.[2] . . . they thought that the building was going to collapse"

[1] There is no explanation for the smoke in the stairways. They are on the north side of the core, far from the debris damage, and there were no fires below floor 7.
1-A pg 16
"the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core.

[2]At that time there was a fire at the west end of floor 7 and a fire on the south side of floor 12.

I can understand the firefighters being skittish but an engineer should know that the building was not in danger of collapse.

.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is an interesting paragraph for several reasons.
"They did not observe any fires at this time on the 8th floor or 9th floor" This was about 1:15 to 1:30 p.m.
The fire on floor 8 first appeared on the north face at about 3:40 p.m.
The fire on floor 9 first appeared on the north face shortly before 4:00 p.m.

If you refuse to consider arson then you are in denial.

Stop that. You're talking blah-blah on a subject that is under MY MOS now. I am trained in arson investigations and see not the first hint of arson.

The hilited part above is consistant with the hilited below:

"they continued to hear creaking noises in the building . . . they heard a loud noise, and a Chief decided that they should evacuate the building. They also met a Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building, and he reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.[1] He indicated that the stairway he was in was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building.

You have teams from two different locations within a huge building reaching different conclusions at to the extent of the fire, but it is safe under such circumstances to assume that the fires will have extended over a far wider area before you could put hose teams on them.

[1] There is no explanation for the smoke in the stairways. They are on the north side of the core, far from the debris damage, and there were no fires below floor 7.

I can understand the firefighters being skittish but an engineer should know that the building was not in danger of collapse.

Balderdash. The engineer would still need to know why the building was creaking and there was no time to fiddle around like that. It looked really bad and there was no reason to waste time and resources on the building. The engineers would be needed elsewhere at locations where there might still be people trapped and in need of rescue. Rescue ALWAYS comes before protecting anybody's property.

Your total lack of understanding of fire department command and control and safety protocols is obvious and astounding.