Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

AZCat said:
Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.
Click to expand...
And to add to that, The NFPA is a members organization with absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter what-so-ever.

What do you say, Chris?
 
AZCat said:
Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.
Click to expand...

C7 is lying again.


:whistling
 
DGM said:
And to add to that, The NFPA is a members organization with absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter what-so-ever.

What do you say, Chris?
Click to expand...

To be fair, if the NFPA guidelines had - as C7 says - specifically asked for checking for explosive residue or thermite, I would agree that NIST should have done so. However, the NFPA guidelines says no such thing.
 
uke2se said:
To be fair, if the NFPA guidelines had - as C7 says - specifically asked for checking for explosive residue or thermite, I would agree that NIST should have done so. However, the NFPA guidelines says no such thing.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he will be posting soon the recommendations (and that's all they really are) for investigating "fires of suspicious origin".
 
DGM said:
I'm sure he will be posting soon the recommendations (and that's all they really are) for investigating "fires of suspicious origin".
Click to expand...

I know what C7 is babbling about. Firefighters for 9/11 truth did a piece on the NFPA guidelines where they claimed it was outrageous that NIST didn't test for explosives because the guidelines said that terrorists might use bombs. Yep, terrorists might use bombs, and that means NIST had to test the WTC dust. Fff911t didn't think it was enough with all the other evidence for no demolition. NIST had to test the dust because NFPA said terrorists might use bombs.

Relevant blurb from NFPA:

N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6
Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…
Click to expand...

(Capitals by fff911t)

SOURCE

So basically, C7 lied about what the NFPA guidelines said. It's possible that he didn't know, but that would mean he doesn't read his own sources and is thus misrepresenting them, which is tantamount to lying.
 
uke2se said:
I know what C7 is babbling about. Firefighters for 9/11 truth did a piece on the NFPA guidelines where they claimed it was outrageous that NIST didn't test for explosives because the guidelines said that terrorists might use bombs. Yep, terrorists might use bombs, and that means NIST had to test the WTC dust. Fff911t didn't think it was enough with all the other evidence for no demolition. NIST had to test the dust because NFPA said terrorists might use bombs.

Relevant blurb from NFPA:



(Capitals by fff911t)

SOURCE

So basically, C7 lied about what the NFPA guidelines said. It's possible that he didn't know, but that would mean he doesn't read his own sources and is thus misrepresenting them, which is tantamount to lying.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I can't say I've ever read anything from firefighters for "truth" (life's too short).

Chris is making it up as he goes along using only "truther" sites as his "research". You should read some of his early stuff.
 
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?


Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?


Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?
Click to expand...

If they are anything like AE911Truth, they are most likely just a small core of actual gullible firefighters (stupid people exist in all lines of work) with a padding of secretaries, weekend reservists and interns.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?
Click to expand...


There's one young fireman from Seattle who buys into this crap.
I read some opinions about him from his peers in NYC.
They were not nice. Not nice at all.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?


Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?
Click to expand...

Pfff... there's one who claims he's 1. A firefighter, and 2. That he buys into it, but he got his head handed to him when he tried to recruit other firefighters to his cause:
http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457

We kicked this around back in '08:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121987&highlight=FIrefighter

Bottom line: There are kooks in any field, but their claims still need to meet the standard of being correct. And regardless of any authority a person in a specific profession brings, he's got to validate his point. Repeating long refuted 9/11 claims isn't the way to do that.

ETA: Errr, edit: We kicked around the idea of a "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth" back in '08. Obviously, the Firehouse forum thread I just linked was done in '09.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
First, prove that you can dampen the sounds of demolition charges.
Click to expand...
That is self evident but if you can't figure it out:
We control noise levels [at 18:20]
http://www.weloo.com/videos/66410/dc---911-mysteries-part-1-demolitions-2of3wmv.html

Secondly, prove that you could dampen the sounds of explosives needed to bring down a structure like the Twin Towers or WTC 7.
Thirdly, prove that this was done.
Click to expand...
Get serious. The point is: The noise level can be reduced.


Or she suddenly turned her head for any number of other reasons. Am I to believe that every time you suddenly turn your head, an explosion is going off behind you?
ETA: Having watched the tape, it seems fairly obvious that she's reacting to the collapse of one of the buildings, not an explosion.
Click to expand...
You are groping for a reason to deny. The building had not started to collapse. Mr. Chandler points this out in the video.
 
Last edited:
C7 said:
Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.
Click to expand...
DGM said:
How's that?
Repeating something does not make it true.
Click to expand...
Free fall acceleration means "falling thru air - NO resistance". I can see where a person of your intelligence would have a problem with this. Ask any high school student.
 
Christopher7 said:
Deniers seem to think evidence is no longer valid if it is on youtube. You speak of "youtube" as a pejorative. This is a rather silly assumption and only an idiot would buy it. Perhaps that's who you are trying to fool.
Click to expand...

True,we all know that the vids on YouTube have been subjected to extensive scientific investigation and peer review.
 
uke2se said:
C7 is spreading his weak arguments in all directions, no matter if they are mutually exclusive. It's a version of the shot-gun approach called the "explosion" approach, or if you will, the "uncontrolled demolition" approach.
Click to expand...

If he fires enough crap around some of it might stick.
 
uke2se said:
Explosives weren't needed because science tells us so. NIST didn't need to explain why the towers "disintegrated". They explained everything that happened up to the collapse. Once the collapse was in motion, disintegration was just a natural result.
Click to expand...
What science? You are confusing supposition with science.

I did not know that the NFPA guidelines specifically called for NIST to look for explosive residue or thermite in the WTC dust. Would you care to point out exactly where in the NFPA guidelines this is written?
Click to expand...
Read: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
Watch and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULmLtqRXZ4&feature=player_embedded
 
Christopher7 said:
What science? You are confusing supposition with science.
Click to expand...

wow...just write "NUH UH!" next time ok? sure, somehow NIST's conclusions are the consensus of the scientific community, but its not science.

how is it that ppl still cite 9/11 mysteries? anyone who take a movie seriously who compares volcano debris to building debris solely on the looks of it really needs their head examined. that movie a was a pure case of moron baiting.

"We control noise levels"is not evidence of any form of hush boom explosive that would require the effect you guys hope and pray for.
 
Christopher7 said:
No two CD's are exactly the same. WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial. It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side. All the video recordings were made several blocks away using directional mikes that are set to filter out low frequencies. This video examines one video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait...I think you are confused. All CD look and SOUND almost IDENTICAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


Here is another one. Compare the two.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3K3kEDEAN4

Here is one that I find interesting. It shows a bunch of fireworks going off, which are, in essence the same type of explosion, just smaller, and it is caught on some guys camera. Hell, you even hear the cutter charges going off. Guess where he was? About 1,00 feet away. Oh, and there is that pyroclastic cloud the TM dolts always ramble on about.

Now, what were you saying about the cameras not being able to pick up "low" frequencies. Guess what, You're wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOWBjd3tNHk&feature=related

Now, how was that kids camera able to pick up that low frequency?

And this freefall stuff. Show me another CD where this occurs. I'll wait....

Also, while you're at it, do you consider across the two lane street plus sidewalks as a little? I certainly don't. Maybe you're a little more loose on definitions. But hey, your call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom