Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Pardalis]

Why don't you wait for the final report Russell?

 

[Moving On]

So you now agree with NIST?

So if NIST conclude in the final report that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the damage and fire you will accept it?

Yes or no?

Silly wabbit.

I will review it and decide then.

 

[Gravy]

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

Russell, you've been asked this time and again. Please clearly state why you think Chief Nigro is wrong, and why you think your opinion should carry more weight than the assessments of the experts who were there.

 

[Moving On]

i have 2 very simple questions for you, please do not dodge them or tell me to go back and read 25 pages of this thread

1: do you beleive WTC7 was "fully involved" with fire?

2: if no, why do you think the FDNY described it this way?

You can see that it was in fact NOT fully involved in fire.

I don't know why NIST has not quoted the firefighters on this.

 

[Pardalis]

I will review it and decide then.

Why do you say you'll decide then?

 

[Moving On]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

 

[Gravy]

The incident command did not expect the first buildings to collapse. Some mysterious source predicted it. Who was that source? The fact that firefighters were told of the collapse of WTC 7 in the same way mitigated their surprise. Of course they were surprised that 3 steel frame buildings collapsed for the first time in history - one of them not struck by a plane and with a collapse initiation that was not in the area of the physical damage.

Why not ask the firefighter you quoted who "John at OEM" was. Why not interview other people who were involved before proclaiming the source "mysterious"?

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia would be a good person to talk to, no?

They were in the process of securing a hydrant and then they said they would move on. At that point I went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction.

Q. They felt that just the one building or both of them?

A. The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

 

[Pardalis]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

I'm sure YOU'LL reorganize your strategy once the final report is out.

 

[Gravy]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

Running away does answer some questions, Russell, but not the ones we're explicitly asking here.

 

[stateofgrace]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

Indeed I will, thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions that were put to you, oh wait...........

 

[Belz...]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

No one here is claiming that all floors were on fire, Russ. You've been battling a strawman for ages, now, and looking silly for it.

But even if only 8 floors HAD been on fire, it's quite possible that the fires, combined with the severe structural damage, were more than enough to bring the building down.

Heck, the firemen knew it would collapse. So what's the problem ?

 

[Belz...]

The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

Wasn't it blocking a street ?

 

[Belz...]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

Is it YOUR strategy not to respond to other people's points and then act as though they were never brought up ?

 

[chipmunk stew]

They did not fear that the initial structural damage would cause WTC 7 to collapse. They would not have allowed firefighters inside after search and rescue was complete if they did. To be perfectly honest, if they thought collapse was imminent they would not have sent firefighters inside at all. Cost/benefit analysis. Protect the rescuer is actually rule number one.

The true indication of when they feared collapse is when they actually evacuated the building for good.

I agree. They began to fear collapse after the building had been burning "fully involved" (whatever that means--their words, not mine) "unchecked" (their word, not mine) for some time, and after they observed "bulging" (their word, not mine), observed "leaning" (their word, not mine), and observed "creaking" (their word, not mine).

As for the words I bolded above, I am unaware of any firefighters inside 7 after search and rescue. The dozens of accounts indicate that the crews were performing search and rescue when they were pulled from the collapse zone.

 

[Trigood]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg



Watch the following video. It is exactly as described.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

Then take the time to notice there is significant smoke being drawn into the overall smoke from the foreground and bottom left of the video well away from WTC 7.

Just admit that is what you see.

Then watch this video to see the same thing again and explain to me where the 47 story fully involved building is in the picture.

Not ONE floor that can be described as anything like fully involved and not even ONE lick of flame.

Get over it.

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

More and more, Russell reminds me of the troofer I was debating on the other forum. His name (or rather, handle) is EugeneAxeman.

Russell's usage of single-sentence paragraphs, like Eugene's, indicates an inability to carry an argument or thought past a one-sentence slogan-like notion.

Russell, like Eugene, also seems fixated on that picture of the smoke coming out of the south face of WTC7, and on trying to deny what that picture clearly says. True, he's picked a different gambit (the "leeward wind tunnel" nonsense, as opposed to Eugene's "collapse debris cloud turning the corner" nonsense). Still the focus on this one picture, and the unwillingness to credit the videos that exist proving him wrong, says volumes aobut his inability (like that of Eugene) to look at evidence and see what it plainly says.

Maybe this just indicates that, in order to argue like a troofer, you have to think alike. Or maybe he and Eugene are just two people who think alike. I'm starting to wonder, however.

Eugene is registered here, but very rarely posts. Odd.

Hey, I'm just asking questions here!

 

[Trigood]

The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

Wasn't it blocking a street ?

Also, there was a simplicity to that cleanup because there was no pile going down 7 stories underground to worry about. Also, it was highly accessible compared to the WTC1-2 "pile." And I believe one main reason was there were no expected casualties in that area, so deconstruction could proceed with very little concern for possible human remains. Obviously they couldn't assume there would be none; but none were expected, and indeed none were found.

Another example of how a troofer asks a rhetorical question, already "knowing" the answer in his "legendary" mind, while unwilling to look at any of the true facts and evidence.

 

[LashL]

There is somebody on this thread now that is part of an agency in King County who certified me medically.

I have given them permission to investigate anything about me and share it here.

Ask them.

Your insults of the SFD are based on ignorance.

What makes you think I care about your medical certification? That said, please provide this person's information and I will ask him or her as you have invited me to.

My "insults" of the SFD are not based on ignorance but based on YOUR behaviour and lack of knowledge as displayed here. If you are representative of their best and brightest, they are in serious trouble.

 

[LashL]

We worked 24 hour shifts.

You are losing it.

When you mentioned four shifts initially in your tortured mathematical post, I mistook that for reference to 8 hour shifts or 10/12s rather than 24s. BFD. That doesn't change the fact that your lack of knowledge of simple and basic firefighting matters is startling for someone who used to be a firefighter.

 

[LashL]

Really? I'm surprised that's no illegal. Remind me to never need a fireman in the USA. I'd rather not entrust my life to someone who has been awake for an entire day straight.

-Gumboot

They are currently doing 24 hour shifts as a pilot project in Toronto as well. It is not the optimal solution by any stretch of the imagination in my view, for precisely the reason you stated. Firefighters tend to like it, of course, because most of them have other jobs in addition to their firefighting jobs, and there are studies that support it, but personally, I think they are BS.

Even my partner had to agree with me, as much as it pained him to do so, that if he was injured at work and was taken to hospital, he’d rather have a nurse who hadn’t been up for 23 hours already doing his stitches or being tasked with monitoring his care, etc.

More often than not, in a busy station like the one my partner works out of, he gets no sleep at all when he is on shift. Sometimes, he might get an hour or two, but rarely does he get more than that.

 

[LashL]

]PS - JREF tactics and personal discrediting can not affect me. I know myself and my past better than you do even if you are really an attorney. Do they have a psychological test for the bars there?

Oops, I guess you didn’t edit that out quickly enough before someone quoted you, Russell.

So, you don’t like it when people call you on your nonsense but you think it’s perfectly acceptable for you to keep making wholly unfounded and ridiculous references to me in which you ascribe to me psychological issues, which you have manufactured out of wholecloth. Got it. For the record, I’m among the sanest people on the planet, and your stupid posts suggesting otherwise are really just that – stupid.