Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Bell]

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]

Awesome! Now what?

 

[Mikey T]

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]

I made a "move" on Jessica Alba once. It didn't work out unfortunately.



ONE MORE TIME. SHOW US YOUR COURAGE. ANSWER THIS ONE LITTLE QUESTION.

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

 

[Christopher7]

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

Strawman. I never implied it was prioritized over anything.
NIST indicated that they had all the higher priorities covered by 1:00 p.m. in this statement.

"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.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by tsig
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?

This is a child's game. Ignore the facts and ask your opponent to speculate so you can make snotty remarks.

FACT:
By about 1:00 p.m. they had enough water and personnel to fight the fires in WTC 7.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

But the water was still provided mostly by relays from pumpers, which kind of tend to run out of gas or break down under adverse conditions like excessive dust clogging air filters and all that sort of thing.

They planned an attack on WTC 7 and then noticed that it was not really a good idea to go in. Why waste water that might suddenly not be available fighting a low-prority fire?

That water was there does not mean that NIST was wrong. They could still not count on haing it. You do not want to be caught without adequate water pressure once you enter a burning building. Bad stuff can happen to the people inside.

That FDNY decided, in the end, not to attack a low-priority fire proves nothing about anything.

 

[Christopher7]

And Chris 7 calls the FDNY cowards because they are afraid of losing their pensions if they talk.

You are lying thru your teeth!

 

[leftysergeant]

You are lying thru your teeth!

Stop that. You are the one who brought up what happened to Serpico as a reason that FDNY is not challenging any of the official story. That implies cowardice on their parts.

Just how bloody easy do you think it is to intimidate a bunch of healthy, vigorous and slightly eccentric young men and women who think it is fun to go into a fully-involved wooden structure designed to burn quickly, or into a couple thousand gallons of burning jet fuel just for drill?

Worried about pensions?

I think most would be bright enough to realize that anybody evil enough to kill a few hundred of their brethern is not likely going to be too trustworthy with their pensions anyway.

And not blowing the whistle on someone who tried to kill them makes it unlikely they would ever see their pensions anyway.

You do need to think these things through from more angles than you do.

Fire fighters are different from you. You can't begin to understand how they would or would not act, so stop acting as though you can.

 

[Christopher7]

But the water was still provided mostly by relays from pumpers, which kind of tend to run out of gas or break down under adverse conditions like excessive dust clogging air filters and all that sort of thing.

Oh please.
The FDNY found a way to get the job done and you are trying to imply that they could not.

They planned an attack on WTC 7 and then noticed that it was not really a good idea to go in. Why waste water that might suddenly not be available fighting a low-prority fire?

You are still arguing priority and ignoring the fact that hey had enough water and personnel to "make a move on" [fight the fires in] WTC 7.

That water was there does not mean that NIST was wrong. They could still not count on haing it.

Give it up. You are worried that the FDNY couldn't figure out what to do.

That FDNY decided, in the end, not to attack a low-priority fire proves nothing about anything.

But that's not the point Lefty.

You are doing the deniers sidestep. Refuse to admit you are wrong and say the point we have been arguing for 10 pages doesn't really matter.

 

[DGM]

Chris7:
Too bad you can't explain why anyone would want to demo WTC7. Maybe then someone might listen to you. Huh?

 

[Mikey T]

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

This is a child's game. Ignore the facts and ask your opponent to speculate so you can make snotty remarks.

FACT:
By about 1:00 p.m. they had enough water and personnel to fight the fires in WTC 7.

What you say as fact is not a fact. Your reading comprehension is poor at best. NO WHERE in the NIST report statement does it say "they had enough water and personnel to fight the fires in building 7". it is clearly written in the NIST report that the FDNY "considered the possibility" of fighting the fire in building 7, that does not mean "they had enough water and personnel to fight the fires in building 7." What this means is the FDNY "considered the possibility" of fighting the fires in building 7, but after taking all things into account they obviously decided that the effort and resources availible would not be used wisely in saving an empty building. This is what it boils down to sir.

You have proved yourself a coward as to avoiding the main question. There has to be a reason why the FDNY avoided fighting the fires in building 7 in your mind or it makes the whole discussion a joke.

I have a suggestion for you until you answer any question outside of your cherry picked minutia of the NIST report. You need to look at the larger picture. This behavior has gone on far too long for you to save face unless you bring more to the table. We all see through your little game, although entertaining to watch how your mind works, it gets tiresome.

 

[Mikey T]

Chris7:
Too bad you can't explain why anyone would want to demo WTC7. Maybe then someone might listen to you. Huh?

Richard Gage and Chris 7 should go get matching tattoos of "We need a new investigation" stenciled on their chests. Chris 7 is a long time poster here, and I am trying to show some respect to him because of this fact, but if you don't have the "why" in who, what, where, when, and why, it's pointless to debate.

 

[DGM]

Richard Gage and Chris 7 should go get matching tattoos of "We need a new investigation" stenciled on their chests. Chris 7 is a long time poster here, and I am trying to show some respect to him because of this fact, but if you don't have the "why" in who, what, where, when, and why, it's pointless to debate.

Oh I know. If you look at my join date and post history I'm quite aware of Chris7's tactics. That said, Chris7, Why take the risks for that building?

 

[Christopher7]

What you say as fact is not a fact. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.

You are the one with a reading comprehension problem.

NO WHERE in the NIST report statement does it say "they had enough water and personnel to fight the fires in building 7".

Wrong
"Until approximately 1:00 p.m." in this sentence means that after 1:00 p.m. the conditions changed and they did have water and personnel to "make a move on" WTC 7.

"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."

 

[Christopher7]

Chris 7 is a long time poster here, and I am trying to show some respect to him

but if you don't have the "why" in who, what, where, when, and why, it's pointless to debate.

Idiotic denial tactic.

Demand I tell you what I could not possibly know or you will ignore what we do know.

It is only necessary to establish "what" - the "where and when" are a given.

An investigation will reveal the "who" and "why".

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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

So your issue is that they were able to consider fighting the fires in WTC7 at 1:00 but instead decided to focus those efforts somewhere else? The people trapped in the burning debris pile are most certainly a much higher priority than an empty office building. You apparently think otherwise. The question then is why do you think that an empty building is more important than trying to save lives? Keep in mind that the number of people trapped were thought to be well over 10,000 at the time.

 

[000063]

I like how he keeps making up claims that lead directly to the questions he refuses to answer, and then declares said questions irrelevant.

Strawman. I never implied it was prioritized over anything.
NIST indicated that they had all the higher priorities covered by 1:00 p.m. in this statement.

"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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7354221&postcount=8255
And as I pointed out, the statement is ambiguously phrased.

You have stated that there was enough water to fight the fires, yet refuse to say how much that "enough" was.

Oh please.
The FDNY found a way to get the job done and you are trying to imply that they could not.

You are still arguing priority and ignoring the fact that hey had enough water and personnel to "make a move on" [fight the fires in] WTC 7.

Which leads directly to the question of why they did not fight said fires. Since you claim priorities are irrelevant, then why did they not fight the fire? Provide a supported, alternative explanation.

You are doing the deniers sidestep. Refuse to admit you are wrong and say the point we have been arguing for 10 pages doesn't really matter.

Such as whether the FDNY was complicit, or how much water was enough, or how much water was available to fight the fires? You've been dodging those questions for a while, despite the fact that one of your claims directly hangs on the second and third. But, nope, asking you for evidence of your claim is "irrelevant".

Have you even done the math? I'm guessing you'll either say you did, and give some nonsense reason why you won't produce it, or ignore the question entirely. Whatever happens, you will not produce those numbers and the logic used to arrive at them.

 

[twinstead]

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

This must be repeated...

 

[NoahFence]

[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'm going with fire as the culprit for the smoke. Call me crazy!

 

[NoahFence]

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

The building wasn't in danger of collapse?

Could have fooled me.

HEY LOOK! They're even pouring water on it! See - they DID fight the WTC 7 fires.

 

[Mikey T]

Idiotic denial tactic.

Demand I tell you what I could not possibly know or you will ignore what we do know.

It is only necessary to establish "what" - the "where and when" are a given.

An investigation will reveal the "who" and "why".

An investigation? You mean the largest criminal investigation is U.S. history? That investigation?

See, it's not too hard to answer the who, what, where, when, and why concerning building 7 and the facts that were given.

Who- The FDNY and many other rescue personel
What- Rescue and firefighting operations at WTC and Building 7
Where- Ground Zero
When- From 8:46 AM until 5:20 PM
Why- Priority assessment of the area to save as many lives as possible as heard through hundreds of quotes from the rescue personnel on scene.

Chris7's take:

Who - Nafarious men and women of the FDNY, some greater entity handing down orders, but all who seem to have something to hide
What - "Rescue and firefighting" operations at WTC and Building 7
Where - Building 7 only
When - 1:00 PM until 5:20
Why - Complete speculation and a refusal to answer.

This isn't a debate, it's like watching a monkey try to **** a football.