9-11 Facts Movement

[RedIbis]

40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

There were no firemen working the fire at WTC 7. There were ffs observing it.

From the FEMA report:

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY

 

[BigAl]

There were no firemen working the fire at WTC 7. There were ffs observing it.

From the FEMA report:

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY

Where did I say there was firefighting in progress?

 

[Sabretooth]

There were no firemen working the fire at WTC 7. There were ffs observing it.

From the FEMA report:

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY

and this is relevant...how?

 

[RedIbis]

Where did I say there was firefighting in progress?

You said firefighters were "working the fire."

Is working the fire supposed to mean not working the fire?

 

[fess]

You said firefighters were "working the fire."

Is working the fire supposed to mean not working the fire?

So, you think that “working the fire” is limited to putting the wet stuff on the red stuff?

 

[dc1971]

In this sub-forum that would be 9/11, not music.

And there are other subforums you can access here at the JREF forum!

 

[twinstead]

So, you think that “working the fire” is limited to putting the wet stuff on the red stuff?

One would think "working the fire" at first entails keeping a close eye on it if you cant initially put water on it.

 

[Quad4_72]

You do realize that this destroys your argument, right?

See page 9, 22, 27, and 105.

I think that is of very little concern to him tri. lol

 

[ghpink]

Why were the black boxes never recovered? Isn't this extremely rare.

I actually did an examination in to this and its not totally rare, but it is close to rare, because we usually find black boxes.

I think it comes down to how rare the event is in history. If you want to compare equal things, start out equal.

How many times in history has a plane flown in to a large 118 story building?

Also about shanksville... there have been a lot of plane crashes in history, but how many were with a pilot who was throttling the plane in to the ground at full speed and tilt? It doesnt happen often.

If you examine those cases, black boxes are not found.

In shanksville, the wreckage was stuck 30 feet in the ground. That is the result of the impact and trajectory. Look at how much rubble was in the twin towers. I would be surprised in any of these events, that you would find a block box.

Now on to the most important part of this topic.

Why don't we start making airplanes out of the same things the make the black boxes from?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I actually did an examination in to this and its not totally rare, but it is close to rare, because we usually find black boxes.

I think it comes down to how rare the event is in history. If you want to compare equal things, start out equal.

How many times in history has a plane flown in to a large 118 story building?

That's a good point (although it was 110 storeys); in particular, we would expect the black boxes of AA11 and UA175 to have remained inside the towers, experienced a rapid jet fuel fire followed by a prolonged contents fire, then have been inside the buildings when they collapsed, experiencing collisions with falling debris and then being crushed by the upper parts of the towers. This is so far in excess of the treatment they are expected to survive that it would be remarkable if any recognisable remains of these black boxes were found.

Also about shanksville... there have been a lot of plane crashes in history, but how many were with a pilot who was throttling the plane in to the ground at full speed and tilt? It doesnt happen often.

If you examine those cases, black boxes are not found.

In shanksville, the wreckage was stuck 30 feet in the ground. That is the result of the impact and trajectory. Look at how much rubble was in the twin towers. I would be surprised in any of these events, that you would find a block box.

In fact, though, the Shanksville crash was rather more in line with an expected airliner crash, because all that happened was that an airliner flew into the ground; there was no ensuing train of fire and structural collapse to further damage the black boxes. And, in agreement with what we would expect, both black boxes were found from the Shanksville crash.

Finally, at the Pentagon, the crash was more severe than expected, and there was a building collapse, but the total treatment of the black boxes was less severe than that of the ones in the WTC crashes. And, hardly surprisingly, one of the black boxes was found in usable condition, and the other was not.

Truthers like to talk about common sense where it's inapplicable, because it's misleading. In cases like this, where it's rather more applicable, they prefer to abandon it, because it doesn't support their lies.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

There were no firemen working the fire at WTC 7. There were ffs observing it.

From the FEMA report:

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY

So you concede that the fires in WTC 7 went completely unfought.

This is a step in the right direction. You are learning, finally.

 

[1337m4n]

no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire

Nope.




Now let's take bets as to what Red's response will be. Will he:

1) Move the goalposts (by criteria): "Well, no steel framed high rise BUILT WITH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES has ever collapsed due to fire!"

2) Move the goalposts (by quantity): "Ha! That's only one example! Now I want TWO examples!"

3) Argue the definition of "high-rise": "It was only twelve stories!"

4) Throw down a red herring: "But...but...the officials said that it was poorly built! Look, you can see that they violated building codes!"

5) Pretend it didn't happen: "I'm still waiting for an example of a steel framed high rise that has collapsed due to fire"



My money's on #5. Any takers?

your argument that WTC 7 was fully expected to collapse is specious.

Except you're forgetting the fact that ON THAT VERY SAME DAY firefighters had just witnessed TWO steel-frame high rises suffer complete collapse from fire.

After witnessing that, you wouldn't even have to be a firefighter to be worried about the state of Building 7.

 

[ergo]

Nope.

Hey, ya found one!

Except that it didn't completely collapse.

Oh, and where was "steel frame" mentioned in the article?

Oh, and:

Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

 

[ergo]

Oh, and:

A demolition order was issued for the block 12 years ago, although it was not clear why it was not carried out.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Nope.

Oh my gods!!! What is this blasphemy!?
Reports of explosion? Check!

Sources said the blaze possibly started in a cellar storing flammable materials, causing several explosions.

Foreknowledge!? Check!

Most of the people in the building, which housed a popular restaurant, were evacuated in time

How can you not conclude this was a controlled demolition!?ONE!? Did they investigate for explosions? How did they know to evacuate all those people in time?

Except that it didn't completely collapse.

Oh, and where was "steel frame" mentioned in the article?

Well you do know how to solve that problem don't ya? Start by finding an example of your choice and perform a full building case study using plans, section, and elevations, + detail drawings, structural plans, and study of events to get a good feel for why the building didn't collapse. Then compare/contrast with the WTC and point out how the results should have been perfectly replicated in the WTC. It needs to be a technical argument, not some half-baked claim. Shouldn't be too hard to for ya to do, I mean you have done this before haven't you?

 

[triforcharity]

Ergo,

Have you started your case study yet?

 

[WTC Dust]

Go for it! I'll get you started:

1. It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.
   The WTC didn't collapse. It turned into dust, and the dust fell.
   
2. It was the unique combination of PLANE CRASHES and FIRE that brought the buildings down.
   What plane crash doesn't include a fire? So you really should just condense that into the "plane crash building go bye-bye" theory.
   
3. It was the unique combination of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and FIRES that brought the building down.
   You just repeated yourself.
   
   
4. We have no EVIDENCE of significant fires or structural damage. Except for the 20-storey rectangular GASH on the south face. NIST didn't need to mention or model the gash.
   This is a problem for the official plane crash conspiracy theory.
   
5. NOBODY took pictures of the south face of WTC7. They were too busy. It's THAT simple.
   This is utterly false. Many pictures of WTC7 were taken from the south side. See below.
   
   
6. The KINETIC ENERGY of the upper block slumping CRASHING through the 85% remaining heat-weakened core and perimeter columns was TOO GREAT for the rest of the 80 or 90 floors of intact building which did NOT suffer damage or fire.
   I call these "bandaids" on the official plane crash conspiracy.
   
   
7. Eighty and 90 storeys of intact structural steel would give way ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY with this TREMENDOUS^TM kinetic energy of the falling rubble from the upper block destroying itself against the rest of the building.
   If all that kinetic energy were turned into destructive energy, then the buildings wouldn't have fallen so fast. The real thing is that by the time any part of the building was falling, it was either dust or getting turned into dust.
   
8. Newton's Third Law IS accounted for in this process. The upper block destroys itself!! Furthermore, Newton's Third Law is ASSUMED in the impact of rubble pieces on the rest of the intact building, and therefore doesn't need to be SHOWN or CALCULATED.
   If Newton's law is invoked to buttress a bad theory, calculations won't help. Either the building pieces lost kinetic energy when they destroyed the lower floors, or they didn't. They didn't have enough energy to fall that fast and do the damage seen at the same time. You have to pick which one under a collapse theory.
   
   
9. Thirty percent of the COLLAPSE ENERGY was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling mass. We're not sure how "collapse energy" is different from kinetic energy but it's probably something you wouldn't understand.
   Ah, so the fall time was only retarded by 30%? I see how you apply the bandaids.
   
10. A building's structural steel framing does NOT provide strength for the building as a whole. Only for ONE FLOOR^TM at a time.
    Oh, really? Bandaid.
    
11. There was NO concrete in the buildings, besides the floor slabs. NONE of the steel was encased in concrete.
    This is true.
    
12. There was NO reinforcement of the concrete slabs.
    This is also true, because the concrete was not a support element of the buildings.
    
    
13. The WEAKENING of the floor connections caused the floor connections to WEAKEN.
    So say the official plane crash conspiracy theorists.
    
14. There was NO CROSS-BRACING of the core columns.
    There were trusses made of steel traveling in both horizontal directions. There were spandrel plates surrounding the entire exterior of the buildings. There were huge steel bolts holding everything together.
    
15. There were NO eyewitness reports of explosions.
    What about earwitnesses?
    
16. It is TEMPERATURE which weakens steel, NOT heat. Correlation IS causation. Furthermore, this has NO applicability to our argument, so stop bringing it up! Stupid truthers.
    Your confusion is what is generating your anger.
    
17. ....

bold is mine

 

[ergo]

Hmm, my sarcasm is so sarcastic that people mistake it for real argument. I'll take that as a compliment.

WTC Dust, I'm on your side - mostly

 

[triforcharity]

So, Ergo, How's that case study going?

 

[ghpink]

In fact, though, the Shanksville crash was rather more in line with an expected airliner crash, because all that happened was that an airliner flew into the ground; there was no ensuing train of fire and structural collapse to further damage the black boxes. And, in agreement with what we would expect, both black boxes were found from the Shanksville crash.

Hey thanks for the comments. I agreed with everything you said except this...

There were extra factors and I don't consider this a normal plane crash.

In my studies of other types of plane crashes, the bulk of them were usually by accident, human error, or faulty equipment.

In the case of Shanksville, according to the transcripts, the pilot pushed full throttle on the stick and aimed it towards the ground.

So the extra factors were, that the pilot wanted to crash the plane (suicide death) and went full throttle in to the ground. In most cases I have studied, it is quiet different then the pilot trying to save the plane and not aiming in to the ground or if it was technical / human failure.

That's why I considered it to be unusual as compared to other plane crashes, so we should not necessarily expect to find black boxes intact.

Finally, at the Pentagon, the crash was more severe than expected, and there was a building collapse, but the total treatment of the black boxes was less severe than that of the ones in the WTC crashes. And, hardly surprisingly, one of the black boxes was found in usable condition, and the other was not.

Truthers like to talk about common sense where it's inapplicable, because it's misleading. In cases like this, where it's rather more applicable, they prefer to abandon it, because it doesn't support their lies.

Dave

Excellent point. We all are looking for the truth... but why are some so hell bent on twisting life to fit their own ideas, instead of relying on the evidence? I understand there are people out there who just want to make money, but for the most part I would like to think, people are good and want real truths in their lives!

When I go out and speak, you can see a large group of people out there who just ignore evidence. A good portion try to hide data that doesn't fit. I have done it myself when I started researching things, until I found methods like Occams Razor and other techniques.

Why do we do this? I would like to hope people are not mean or evil at heart. Or are we? We seem to be such a short sighted species, who doesn't like to plan for the future.

So you concede that the fires in WTC 7 went completely unfought.

This is a step in the right direction. You are learning, finally.

There was no firefighting in WTC building 7 because they had low water pressure. A water main was broken.

Its that simple.