Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[sylvan8798]

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

Paraphrasing lefty: Your total lack of understanding of structural engineering and forensics is obvious and astounding.

 

[DGM]

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.

Come on, Are you suggesting this engineer shouldn't have assembled a team of colleagues to view every angle and give the chiefs a 100% accurate assessment of the building?



Sounds to me they guessed (rightfully) on the safe side

 

[Christopher7]

I have asked you several times how much water would've been "enough",

Your question is pure sarcasm.

This is not "speculation", or irrelevant.

It most certainly is.

the FDNY were incompetent, were fooled &/sabotaged by the real culprits, or lied.

That came out of your head, not mine.

You are denying the inherent part of this sentence:

"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.

They had water next door at the Verizon building.

"They gave me a couple of companies and said get into the telephone company building and check on extension there. We had extension on the first and second floors, so we took some standpipe lines, put them in operation and knocked that down."
Chief John Norman - Firehouse Magazine

 

[DGM]

"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.

Read my bold and explain where you got the "personnel" part. What freed up all the personnel after 1 PM?

 

[DGM]

Hello Chris?
While you're at it you might want to explain why this engineer that you mentioned might want to guess and and possibly put lives in jeopardy.

I know, minor details.

 

[DGM]

Chris7:

This all boils down to; what wakes this building so important that it had to be saved or (flip side) had to be demolished in a covert way? Answer this and you will win a prize as the first "truther" to do so. (prize to be determined later, I'm thinking a donation to your favorite charity)

 

[Christopher7]

Paraphrasing lefty: Your total lack of understanding of structural engineering and forensics is obvious and astounding.

This is the denial tactic of implying that I made this determination and it is utterly false.

NIST L pg 36
A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

NCSTAR 1-A
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed

 

[leftysergeant]

This all boils down to; what wakes this building so important that it had to be saved or (flip side) had to be demolished in a covert way? Answer this and you will win a prize as the first "truther" to do so. (prize to be determined later, I'm thinking a donation to your favorite charity)

I would specifily ask why it would be less important to preserve what could be preserved of the telecommunications system than to save an empty building that was most administrative government offices?

When the **** hits the fan, your first concern is with communications.

I get the impression that Christopher7 never served in the military. It might explain his inability to see some of the implications of the actions he questions in terms of how they contributed to command and control and how important that is in this sort of situation.

It would take a lot of resources that were better used elsewhere to determine whether WTC 7 was as bad as it looked. There was no indication of any sort that there was any concern other than fire in the telephone building.

There was no question in anybody's mind that the services which that building controlled had to be brought back on line ASAP.

Rotten Rudy's bunker was worthless before it opened up. Only a moron puts that sort of thing above ground level right next to a bunch of primary targets for terroism and in a location where a simple bumper-humnper traffic accident will make it inaccessible by the people who have to be called in for an OH **** situation.

 

[leftysergeant]

A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

I think you're talking to hear your head rattle now.

I am assuming that you are referring to the bands of stiffened steel at intevals up the side.

Prove that the engineers could see that those hand not been hit and broken by the huge, multi-ton high-velocity panels of exterior columns from the north tower.

Elsewise you have squat.

 

[Christopher7]

Read my bold and explain where you got the "personnel" part. What freed up all the personnel after 1 PM?

More help was arriving from the other boroughs and Jersey all day.

You are not helpless so don't ask me to spoon feed you. Read my posts on this.

 

[DGM]

I get the impression that Christopher7 never served in the military. .

I never served in the military. I also think that what Chris is missing is a sense of priority, life (even if it was only perceived)) or property. Fortunately the professionals on site at the time did not have this problem.

 

[tsig]

More help was arriving from the other boroughs and Jersey all day.

You are not helpless so don't ask me to spoon feed you. Read my posts on this.

Ok, so what do you think is the reason the fire in WTC7 wasn't fought?

 

[DGM]

More help was arriving from the other boroughs and Jersey all day.

You are not helpless so don't ask me to spoon feed you. Read my posts on this.

Thank you for the endorsement (not helpless). Care to address why this building was so important? Really, depending on your answer (the amount) a donation to charity will follow.

 

[Christopher7]

I am assuming that you are referring to the bands of stiffened steel at intevals up the side.

They were steel stiffeners and they were every other floor.

Prove that the engineers could see that those hand not been hit and broken by the huge, multi-ton high-velocity panels of exterior columns from the north tower.

Your request proves you know nothing about framing or structure.

The moment frames were severed in the damaged area but the weight of the building above was transferred to the surrounding columns by the moment frames [steel belts] above the damaged area.

 

[000063]

Your question is pure sarcasm.

Speaking as the person who actually asked it; it's not. Sardonic, maybe, but not sarcastic.

It most certainly is.

It is amazing how much of my post vanished.

(That previous sentence was sarcasm, Chris7. The implication is that is not "amazing" at all, but that you have been quote-mining my post. This bracketed paragraph is sardonic. Extra credit if you know the difference.)

Chris7, you have claimed that there was enough water, which means NISTs claim that there wasn't enough water is wrong.

If Alice says that a full bottle (capacity unknown) in Bob's car is not enough to fill a container (whose capacity is also unknown), and Bob says the bottle in his car has enough to liquid at full capacity to fill the container, the next logical step is to have Bob pour the bottle into the container. Since that is unavailable to us, the next logical step is to ask how much the bottle held, and how much the container held.

You're Bob, by the way, steadfastly refusing to tell us how much either the bottle (amount of water available for fighting the fires in WTC 7) orthe container (the amount of water it would take to successfully fight said fires) holds. You're saying Alice is wrong, yet you refuse to prove it. It is not irrelevant to ask you to prove your assertions with evidence. That is called "having a debate".

That came out of your head, not mine.

Of course. As I have already pointed out, you refuse to confront the consequences that follow from your assertions, because they're ludicrous.

Also ludicrous is the implication that you can only discuss the logic arising from your posts.

You are denying the inherent part of this sentence:

"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."

I've highlighted the part of that unsourced quote which I've never seen before as far as I know which explains why they weren't able to fight the fires. You seem to have missed it.

In other words, at about 1:00 p.m., they had the water and personnel to to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Nope. It says they weren't even able to "consider the possibility". They were too busy even able to think about it up until that point. Of course, it is ambiguously phrased, but we can't use the context to determine what was meant, because you didn't source the quote.

They had water next door at the Verizon building.

The much smaller building which had no fires reported in it and, if I'm reading that page correctly, held up to the debris pretty well?

"Any water at all" isn't "enough water", Chris7.

"They gave me a couple of companies and said get into the telephone company building and check on extension there. We had extension on the first and second floors, so we took some standpipe lines, put them in operation and knocked that down."
Chief John Norman - Firehouse Magazine

I'm going to need some context. An issue number, even.

 

[Mikey T]

Ok, so what do you think is the reason the fire in WTC7 wasn't fought?

I bet you $100 dollars Chris 7 will not answer this question. It interferes with the minutue of which floors were burning, how much water was availble, what engineer said what, blah, blah, blah... This question destroys his fantasy.

And Chris 7 calls the FDNY cowards because they are afraid of losing their pensions if they talk. Can I get an irony meter please?

 

[dafydd]

Ok, so what do you think is the reason the fire in WTC7 wasn't fought?

Answer the question please Chris.

 

[000063]

It's also weird how he refuses to answer the question of why 7 would be prioritized over anything else, because it's "irrelevant".

 

[Christopher7]

It would take a lot of resources that were better used elsewhere to determine whether WTC 7 was as bad as it looked. There was no indication of any sort that there was any concern other than fire in the telephone building.

You have not done your homework on this subject. You keep making baseless statements that are incorrect.

"[FONT=&quot]Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7."
Capt. Boyle - Firehouse Magazine
[/FONT]

 

[Mikey T]

Ok, so what do you think is the reason the fire in WTC7 wasn't fought?

Personally I think this debate with Chris 7 should come to a close until this question is answered. I mean, this is the whole point correct?