Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

I urge everyone to jump in and express how outraged bill smith's accusations make you feel, and to try your best to prove him wrong and maybe even change his mind.

Please, find it in your heart to perform this act of charity. He's in such need. Have pity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You mean you urge everybody to do the jref thing. 'Mobbing' or 'swamping' ...lol

 

[T.A.M.]

What about this then 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire from floor to ceiling, all 47 floors'. Was that not specific enough ?

Well It was obviously not an actual assessment, as to determine that the WTC7 was on fire "Floor to Ceiling" all 47 floors, he would have to be inside, and witnessed it as "Floor to Ceiling" for each floor. It was his decription of what he remembered...a building THAT SEEMED to be entirely on fire.

Why do you assume such maliciousness from these peoples statements, when clearly they were just trying to describe what they saw as best they could, based on their recollection (which we know is not reliable) of it?

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

Bill, you have Tri, Chewy, and myself who are all firefighters and all of us are telling you that you are wrong.

Like I said, if you don't trust or believe us, please get in touch with a fireman of you're choosing to verify what " fully involved" means.

I'm dead serious, bill. If there was ever anything you could easily check out and verify, this is it.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am gonna go out on an uneducated, non google look up limb here, and guess that "full involved" does not mean ALL FLOORS are on fire from FLOOR TO CEILING.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Well It was obviously not an actual assessment, as to determine that the WTC7 was on fire "Floor to Ceiling" all 47 floors, he would have to be inside, and witnessed it as "Floor to Ceiling" for each floor. It was his decription of what he remembered...a building THAT SEEMED to be entirely on fire.

Why do you assume such maliciousness from these peoples statements, when clearly they were just trying to describe what they saw as best they could, based on their recollection (which we know is not reliable) of it?

TAM

But the buildimg didn't seem to be entirely on fire. The exact opposite is true. No weak excuses TAM- they LIED. Like I said one or two could ne a mistake but a dozen or more is a deliberate strategy of disinformation.

 

[bill smith]

Bill, you have Tri, Chewy, and myself who are all firefighters and all of us are telling you that you are wrong.

Like I said, if you don't trust or believe us, please get in touch with a fireman of you're choosing to verify what " fully involved" means.

I'm dead serious, bill. If there was ever anything you could easily check out and verify, this is it.

Well Sabretooth I guess you have the stage. Tell the folks what 'fully involved in fire ' really means.

 

[beachnut]

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting

bill lost again. she need to study next time

Is reading comprehension a problem with 911 truth cult members? yes

 

[T.A.M.]

They attended the same lesson Sabretooth..


"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring and fully involved " –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

"The flames were coming out of every window of 7 It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block".–Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

"7 was fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved" - Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window of 7 has fire. It is an amazing site" –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6.

"The other building,#7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." FDNY Firefighter TJ Mundy

"7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."–FDNY Firefighter Steve Modica

"So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed" -–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim

So if we take out all the comments that use the specific term "fully involved", how many quotes are you left with (firefighters here, please explain for bill and I what the term "fully involved" means)?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

What is truly bizarre, is ONLY in trutherland, would the semantics of fire description be used as "evidence" of an inside job. They almost drag you down into their rabbit hole sometimes, don't they.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting

bill lost again. she need to study next time

Is reading comprehension a problem with 911 truth cult members? yes

Yes Beachnut....'fire, heat and smoke so widesread ' from floor to ceiling all 47 floors. What's the problem ?

 

[T.A.M.]

BILL!!!! BILL!!!! over here...pay attention...

it does not mean "all encompassing" or involving EVERY FLOOR, in the middle, on the sides, or FLOOR TO CEILING. It means wide spread to the point of waiting for fire streams before internal access to the building can occur.

I know you are not DUMB, so you must be ignorant.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

BILL!!!! BILL!!!! over here...pay attention...

it does not mean "all encompassing" or involving EVERY FLOOR, in the middle, on the sides, or FLOOR TO CEILING. It means wide spread to the point of waiting for fire streams before internal access to the building can occur.

I know you are not DUMB, so you must be ignorant.

TAM

Don't tell me TAM- tell the fireman who made the reports..

And let's face it TAM fully 'involved in fire' includes a fire that is roaring out of every window.

 

[BigAl]

Yes Beachnut....'fire, heat and smoke so widesread ' from floor to ceiling all 47 floors. What's the problem ?

Don't read carefully, do you?

 

[T.A.M.]

Don't tell me TAM- tell the fireman who made the reports..

bill, are you literate? seriously, can you read, or are you having someone next to you read what is on the screen? Why are you dismissing the definition provided by beachnut, for the term "fully involved", which clearly does NOT mean what you claim it does? Why? You are so concerned about the reader, the lurker, yet what are you showing them now, with these posts you have made?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Yes Beachnut....'fire, heat and smoke so widesread ' from floor to ceiling all 47 floors. What's the problem ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

No, it does not say what you said. It means what it means, no more, no less.

You may want to read the, "internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.", part. You have problems understanding things.

 

[Sabretooth]

Don't tell me TAM- tell the fireman who made the reports..

Beachnut did what you should have done. Instead, you post more nonsense. His post explains exactly what "fully involved" means.

All "fully involved" means, in layman, is that the structure cannot be entered because the fire is visible, widespread, and unconfined. Until further size up can be made, all operations are to take part from the outside.

It does not mean all encompassing fire from floor to ceiling.

 

[bill smith]

bill, are you literate? seriously, can you read, or are you having someone next to you read what is on the screen? Why are you dismissing the definition provided by beachnut, for the term "fully involved", which clearly does NOT mean what you claim it does? Why? You are so concerned about the reader, the lurker, yet what are you showing them now, with these posts you have made?

TAM

Beachnut's definition in no way ameliorates my position. The definition largely conforms to my own definition.The take away message of today is that firemen are no longer immune from criticism. They are no longer saints. They are just professionals who unfortunately suffered heavy losses on 9/11.

 

[bill smith]

Beachnut did what you should have done. Instead, you post more nonsense. His post explains exactly what "fully involved" means.

All "fully involved" means, in layman, is that the structure cannot be entered because the fire is visible, widespread, and unconfined. Until further size up can be made, all operations are to take part from the outside.

It does not mean all encompassing fire from floor to ceiling.

Tell that to the fireman who reported it..

 

[bill smith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

No, it does not say what you said. It means what it means, no more, no less.

You may want to read the, "internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.", part. You have problems understanding things.

You know something Beachnut ? If you were right and the fires in WTC7 were actually pretty minor then how on EARTH did WTC7 burn down ?

 

[beachnut]

You know something Beachnut ? If you were right and the fires in WTC7 were actually pretty minor then how on EARTH did WTC7 burn down ?

Once again you have messed up.

You have no clue what fully involved means, and no idea what fire does.

Fully involved does not mean minor; it means what it means and you fail to understand 911 given all the answers, and 9 years to check it out.

Apologize to the firemen. Stop exposing your ignorance. (You have no idea how bad you have messed up; lucky for you all your claims are delusions or the MIB would have vaporized you with a beam weapon long ago)