Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[LashL]

Poor Russell.

He couldn't stand being challenged here and he couldn't stand being unable to respond meaningfully or at all, and his only recourse is to create a Sooper Sekrit Romper Room for Troofers at the post-meltdown LC forum. Oh, how the "mighty" have fallen.

 

[Trigood]

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

Do your thought processes have any connection to reality, Russell?

To be fair, it was known in advance that the towers were going to collapse, hence why the Mayor and others were evacuated from WTC7. However it was hardly a "prediction". The NYPD Aviation Unit saw visible evidence of imminent collapse, and reported it. Simple as that.

Likewise, the Fire Chiefs who ordered an immediate evacuation did so based on actually visible evidence of imminent collapse, not from a "prediction".

There were indeed some structural engineers who say as soon as they saw the fires they knew the buildings were going to collapse - and even tried to get hold of the FDNY to warn them. I suppose technically that's a prediction, though again, really they're responding to actual visible evidence.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

You must have read the dreck of Pickering to which I was responding? i.e.:

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

You will note that I did not say "nobody knew they were going to collapse," so why are you responding as if I did? Note that I said, "The great majority of 'experts' that day did not predict the collapses." What you've said hardly contradicts that. Of course, I am aware that some knew in advance (although your passive construction is hardly all that illuminating: "it was known in advance" -- by whom? how soon?). In fact, you go on to corroborate what I'm saying by talking about how little "prediction" was taking place that day.

Pickering was the one who used the word "prediction" so loosely and irresponsibly. In spite of that, I am aware of isolated pockets of knowledge of imminent collapse among first responders which, however, did not make it to the radios of most of the firemen, especially in the north tower.

Pickering was implying that everyone in charge, especially Giuliani, knew they would collapse, which is far from the truth. Perhaps at a certain point Giuliani knew. Certainly after the south tower collapsed, he was "in the loop" with the police and they knew the second one was probably going to collapse as well. But Russell was using that one specific instance to imply that the general prediction among all first responders was that there was going to be a collapse.

I was merely emphasizing the fact that it's ridiculous to assume that the great majority of the first responders that day expected the towers to collapse. Otherwise, many more would have gotten out in time to survive.

It's true that certain very knowledgable experts thought they might collapse after seeing the planes hit, but most had no way of conveying that knowledge to anyone on the ground (I am thinking specifically of Mark Loizeaux of CDI, who wasn't able to get thru on the phones to New York, as you imply).

Also, as the tragedy unfolded, as described in 102 Minutes, the helicopter cops could clearly see that the collapse was imminent (they even warned ahead of time of the first collapse). They got word to their folks and got most of the policemen out, esp. of the second collapse zone. I assume you know that one of the great tragedies of the day was that the police/firefighter communications interoperability was not there to get the warning in to the firefighters, hence 100+ firefighters died unnecessarily in the north tower. They had tried to gain interoperability thru buying new radios (I think they were Motorolas), but as 102 Minutes so poignantly explains, the radios that interoperated were rejected for various reasons and were sitting unused back in station houses or in trunks of cars. In addition, the repeaters in the WTC towers either (1) did not work, or (2) were abandoned because the FDNY couldn't get them to work. It was all so tragic and unnecessary. The terrible thing is, I have no idea if these problems have been fixed or not.

Gumboot, although I agree with your facts, I take issue with how you presented them as if in response to my post, which I stand by. I'd appreciate it next time if you would respond directly to Pickering instead of to me, when it is Pickering with whom you disagree. Sorry if I sound a little testy, but I guess I'm feeling that way, a little. *sniff*

ETA: One very obvious fact that is usually ignored by the CTs is that hardly any of the first responders even knew the south tower had even collapsed, because it was impossible to see that it was missing in all that smoke. All they knew was that something had blown up, or that some part of one of the towers had collapsed, or that another plane had hit, or whatever -- something bad had happened. I think to a lot of the firefighters, especially those who'd lived thru the '93 bombing and seen the towers survive, it was unthinkable that the towers could or would collapse. Of course, everything that happened that day was unthinkable. But I still believe that the majority of the firefighters in the north tower did not realize that the south tower had collapsed. That is my belief, after reading 102 Minutes and lots of other stuff. So clearly, Russell is off his head on this one.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

You must have read the dreck of Pickering to which I was responding? i.e.:

You will note that I did not say "nobody knew they were going to collapse," so why are you responding as if I did? Note that I said, "The great majority of 'experts' that day did not predict the collapses." What you've said hardly contradicts that. Of course, I am aware that some knew in advance (although your passive construction is hardly all that illuminating: "it was known in advance" -- by whom? how soon?). In fact, you go on to corroborate what I'm saying by talking about how little "prediction" was taking place that day.

Woah! Hold on there a moment.

For starters, I explain the "whom" later in my post. The "it was known in advance" was merely an introduction.

Secondly, I was responding to both of you. First off, in your post:

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

In this you imply the fact that first responders remained inside is evidence that experts did not know a collapse was imminent. However, as you yourself later state, the people managing those first responders DID know a collapse was imminent, they simply could not contact the firemen. Indeed, FDNY chiefs gave evacuation orders SEVERAL times - this is the sole reason that none of those from the firehouse featured in the Naudet documentary were killed on 9/11 - they heard the evac calls.

I certainly am aware that the tragedy of the FDNY was primarily a result of the transponder not being employed because it was (incorrectly) concluded that it was not working (the brand of walkie-talkie is irrelevant as there aren't any that can penetrate 50+ floors of a skyscraper on their own, and communication between NYPD and FDNY is irrelevant because FDNY couldn't even hear their OWN evac order anyway).

I was not so much refuting your position, merely clarifying that the death of so many first responders was not in itself evidence that there was no advance warning.

The meat of my post, however, was directed at Russell.

It is a common argument amongst CTers, that the Major must have had some advanced insider knowledge of a CD because WTC7 was evacuated so early. I was merely point out that this evacuation was a direct result of specific information communicated to the command bunker via the NYPD Aviation Unit. Thus, although the Mayor DID know in advance, and WTC7 WAS evacuated in advance, it was in response to a perfectly mundane awareness of WTC1's collapse, not some nefarious insider knowledge of WTC1, 2, or 7's imminent demolition.

In essense, Trigood, we are on completely the same page.

-Gumboot

 

[aggle-rithm]

It is a common argument amongst CTers, that the Major must have had some advanced insider knowledge of a CD because WTC7 was evacuated so early. I was merely point out that this evacuation was a direct result of specific information communicated to the command bunker via the NYPD Aviation Unit.

If it were me, personally, I wouldn't need any insider knowledge or specific information. If I were in a building where an airliner had just crashed a block away and a thousand feet overhead, there would soon be a whole lot of gone between me and that building.

 

[Belz...]

If it were me, personally, I wouldn't need any insider knowledge or specific information. If I were in a building where an airliner had just crashed a block away and a thousand feet overhead, there would soon be a whole lot of gone between me and that building.

Shill.

 

[CurtC]

This little room should be called Circle of JAQ.

How about just "Circle JAQ"?

 

[jhunter1163]

How about just "Circle JAQ"?

I didn't want to be quite so direct, but that IS pretty much calling a spade a spade.

 

[LashL]

Back in November, you quoted some statistics about the Toronto Fire Service and the Seattle FD and said "you can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part" and I said that I would, indeed, check your numbers, that it is not "foolishness" to do so, and that it is in my nature to be accurate and not just accept what someone says without verifying the facts and evidence.

I have been busy and not able to post much recently, but threads have a long life here, and now that I've been able to find some time, and now that I see you're back here on other threads, it seems an appropriate time to post the results of my review of your numbers.

It turns out that I was quite correct to question your numbers. They are, in fact, wrong, misleading, and poorly researched.

Here are the relevant portions of your post:

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

You must not have looked very hard. In 2005, Toronto did indeed have 140,516 incidents. Of those, 9,362 were actual fires (structures but not including vehicle fires). They also had 29,063 false alarms. In addition, there were 11,436 vehicle incidents, including fires, although not all vehicle incidents would necessarily involve fires, some would be extrications etc., but the numbers are not broken out suffiicently to determine how many of the vehicle incidents involved fires.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

Yes, those statistics are accurate as far as they go. The fires included 481 structural fires, 424 vehicle fires, 614 rubbish, dumpster, brush, etc., and the rest were "others". Of those 1,736 fires in 2001, Seattle had 5 "major" fires, which they define as fires causing over $1 million in property damage or resulting in fatalities. Fortunately, there were no fire fatalities that year.

Of Seattle's 73,677 incidents, nearly 80% (57,231) were Rescue/EMS calls, which is not surprising in light of the integrated EMS system in place there. Another 7,609 calls were "lock outs, animal rescues, etc."

Of Toronto's 140,516 incidents, only 53% (74,956) were Rescue/Medical calls, which is also not surprising in light of the fact that Toronto does not have the same kind of integrated EMS system in place. Toronto has other agencies in place for the hundreds of thousands of medical calls received annually, including, but not limited to, these folks:

http://www.toronto.ca/ems/
http://www.toronto.ca/ems/overview/statistics.htm

So, you see, you were wrong about the number of actual fires vs. fire calls in Toronto; your research was poor in that you could not find the number of false alarms; and the rest of your post was nonsense, and has previously been responded to above, and which is linked below.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

This part was already answered previously. You were wrong on that, too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2087405&postcount=561

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

This part was already answered previously. You were wrong on that, too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2087405&postcount=561

And you have failed to answer the legitimate questions posed to you, not only in my posts, but throughout the thread by others who are actually on topic, perhaps now that you're back arguing about the Pentagon and the cab driver, you can take a moment to respond to the numerous questions you left unanswered here.

 

[LashL]

Russell Pickering

In case it wasn't obvious enough for people like Russell, my post #648 was directed to Russell Pickering.

I realized, after the fact, that I did not specifically refer to him by name or point out that it was his shoddy research I was referring to in my prior post.

While I am confident that anyone reading this thread knows that I was referring to Russell and his prior post, and while I am confident that Russell knows that as well, and while I am confident that he has seen my post above and has chosen not to respond to it, I thought I should at least clairify this on the record so that he cannot later use my inadvertent failure to explicitly name him in that post as part of his next copout routine.

That is all.