Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Thank you for finally admitting that they had enough water and firefighters to fight the fires in WTC 7.

The prolific writers here have filled 10 or 20 pages with denial of and diversion from this simple point.
Click to expand...

You have been told a hundred times that yea, if the WTC7 was the ONLY building on fire that day, and was worth the risk of saving it, they would have had enough water and firefighers.

But, given everything else that was happening that day, the decision was made to not fight the fires because the resources were needed elsewhere. So, in every sense imaginable by rational people, there was NOT ENOUGH resources to fight WTC7's fires.

So, you take the denial and diversion crown, C7, because you won't come out and enlighten us as to why WTC7 was not given any of those resources.
 
Christopher7 said:
No. Simply looking at the damage and the fact that there was no progressive failure is enough to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.
Click to expand...

And just who the hell are you again, and why does your opinion matter?
 
DGM said:
So, now can you explain why they should have made WTC7 a priority?
Click to expand...
It was on fire and they had enough water and firefighters to fight the two relatively small fires on floors 7 and 12.

They had gotten down their priority list to WTC 7 and the chief in charge of operations at West and Vesey ordered a group of firefighters to go fight the fires.
 
NIST 1-9 Page 300
[FONT=&quot]"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.

[/FONT]
 
Christopher7 said:
No. Simply looking at the damage and the fact that there was no progressive failure is enough to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.
Click to expand...

You seem to keep forgetting about the fires in the building.

Here's a few pieces that you also seem to keep forgetting.

"the building didn’t look good"
"probably the standpipe systems were shot"
" no hydrant pressure"
" that building doesn’t look straight"
" It didn’t look right"
"nobody’s going into 7"
"there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there,"


Christopher7 said:
There is a large hole and the corner column is missing but there was no collapse. It is self evident that the moment frames redistributed the weight.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is awesome, isn't it?
 
Christopher7 said:
It was on fire and they had enough water and firefighters to fight the two relatively small fires on floors 7 and 12.

They had gotten down their priority list to WTC 7 and the chief in charge of operations at West and Vesey ordered a group of firefighters to go fight the fires.
Click to expand...

POSSIBLY. CONSIDER.

Do you need a lesson in word definitions?

Why do you ignore every single post in the last 2-3 pages that PROVE you're wrong?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST 1-9 Page 300
[FONT=&quot]"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.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Who set this fire? Nobody was in the building except FDNY.

Do you understand that a smoldering fire can take some time to flare up, right?

Yeah, go back to banging nails.
 
triforcharity said:
You seem to keep forgetting about the fires in the building.
Click to expand...
You keep forgetting what we have been debating.

The game played here is to confuse the issue with a lot of side tracking.


NIST said there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

That is not true.
 
triforcharity said:
Who set this fire? Nobody was in the building except FDNY.

Do you understand that a smoldering fire can take some time to flare up, right?
Click to expand...
You are in denial. You can only think of reasons to deny.

Arson is a possibility but you cannot accept that.
 
Christopher7 said:
It was on fire and they had enough water and firefighters to fight the two relatively small fires on floors 7 and 12.

They had gotten down their priority list to WTC 7 and the chief in charge of operations at West and Vesey ordered a group of firefighters to go fight the fires.
Click to expand...
So? Let's suppose you're right, Is there a point to this or are you just hopping to poke enough holes in NIST's statements to negate their conclusion.
 
Christopher7 said:
You keep forgetting what we have been debating.

The game played here is to confuse the issue with a lot of side tracking.


NIST said there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

That is not true.
Click to expand...

SO WHAT?

You still have no point.

No. Simply looking at the damage and the fact that there was no progressive failure is enough to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.

There is a large hole and the corner column is missing but there was no collapse. It is self evident that the moment frames redistributed the weight.
Click to expand...
Utterly laughable.
 
Christopher7 said:
You keep forgetting what we have been debating.

The game played here is to confuse the issue with a lot of side tracking.


NIST said there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

That is not true.
Click to expand...

You still have yet to show why they would take water away from much higher priorities, to fight a fire in an unstable building, that was not a PRIORITY, that was NOT a threat to firefighters, and posed no significant value to the city. (the Verizon building did however have value to the FDNY etc.)

Care to take a stab at that? (BTW, you cannot prove this BS claim, no matter how hard you try, no matter what leaps you take. But, it's fun watching you bask in a sea of ignorance.)
 
Christopher7 said:
You are in denial. You can only think of reasons to deny.

Arson is a possibility but you cannot accept that.
Click to expand...

Who set it? When? Please present your FACTS and EVIDENCE. Of course, you also need to answer the simple question of : Why do you cherry pick and make up lies?

Another you have seem to have forgotten.
"what do you think is the reason the fire in WTC7 wasn't fought? "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom