Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[NoahFence]

There was no evidence that the fires spread from floor to floor, except, perhaps, just prior to the collapse of the building. [floor 14]
NCSTAR 1A pg 52

Uh...

YOU said there was fire on 7.

THEN

YOU said there was fire on 8.

There's your evidence. PLEASE tell me you're just kidding around here.

Edited by Myriad: 

personalized remark removed

 

[Christopher7]

it's typically not a good idea to mess with 100 men with axes either.

Point taken

BTW, who is this CIA guy?

Fred . . . . I can't remember his last name.

Can you cite any evidence?

This is speculation, a possibility, and your questions are silly.

Also, while you're at it, will you be listing the signs of arson?

Edited by Myriad: 

personalized remark removed

It was the fires that got started around 3 or 4 p.m. on the 8th and 9th floors.

It's been big fun as always. [FONT=&quot]Mañana[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

Uh...

YOU said there was fire on 7.

THEN

YOU said there was fire on 8.

There's your evidence. PLEASE tell me you're just kidding around here.

Edited by Myriad: 

personalized remark removed

Edited by Myriad: 

personalized remark removed

 

[NoahFence]

and there was plenty of resources available to fight the fires.

40 firefighters and the Hudson River.

40 firefighters can carry WTC 7 to the Hudson River?

 

[NoahFence]

So fire doesn't grow, get bigger and move on to the next available fuel source?

You ARE that stupid. You don't even know wood beams can suffer from creep. Hell, I know that.

 

[triforcharity]

You are a little bit slow on the uptake too. It was the fires that got started around 3 or 4 p.m. on the 8th and 9th floors.

You'rea bit slow on the presenting evidence of this arson.

So, a fire started. That is your evidence of an arson? Awesome!!

 

[excaza]

Some arsonist tried to destroy my grill last night

 

[excaza]

40 firefighters and the Hudson River.

You still haven't explained why they would fight a fire in an empty building when there were 2 collapsed non-empty skyscrapers right next to it.

 

[NoahFence]

You still haven't explained why they would fight a fire in an empty building when there were 2 collapsed non-empty skyscrapers right next to it.

He said the CIA had guns, remember?

 

[uke2se]

When did "They" supposedly set these fires, Chris? I mean, that's what you are saying. You are saying someone deliberately set fires in a building that had been hit by debris, that had a big hole in it and that was creaking, and that supposedly had already been wired with explosives.

So, how were the fires set? When were they set? Why were they set? How did "They" ensure that the fire didn't spread and ignite the explosives that you assert were present without any means for firefighting?

ETA: Before you start pulling stuff out of your anus again, please support each answer with proper evidence (hint: assertions and appeals from ignorance aren't evidence).

 

[sylvan8798]

No, The building did not collapse from the debris damage. The loads were redistributed by the moment frames. An engineer would have known that.

The collapse that NIST said happened, could not have been foreseen.

So, let's be clear. The engineer on site, who can't see all that much of what is going on INSIDE the building or in any of the still-clad structure, should know that the loads have redistributed safely and are not dangerously overloading anything or causing any potentially problematic eccentric loadings. He should know that the deformation and creaking being observed is nothing serious. But he can't possibly know or speculate that the fires and/or damage might cause some catastrophic failure INSIDE the structure. Even though he has just had two gargantuan lessons in the possible consequences of steel+damage+fire.

As usual, your arguments make zero sense in the real world. You can't even put together the logical sequence: "It's damaged, it's on fire, something bad could happen."


BTW, you still haven't answered why you think they should have fought fires which YOU claim were putting themselves out.

 

[Myriad]

I had to edit some personalized comments above. Going forward, do not personalize the argument.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad

 

[sylvan8798]

The problem with "theories" like Chris7's is that you need an ENTIRE NARRATIVE, not just a series of "possible" isolated events. As soon as you attempt to construct a narrative with the isolated events, you get something that doesn't make any sense.

Take WTC7. It's wired for demolition, and now the plan is to depend on the collapse of WTC1 to do some damage and start some fires, which can later be blamed for the "collapse". How do you control that? Won't there be a problem if there is no damage or fire from WTC1? What if there is TOO MUCH damage and it falls down right away? After the damage is there, you get an engineer to lie and tell the FDNY that there is a risk of collapse.

Then, some of the fires go out, and you don't feel like there is ENOUGH fire to "blame" so you have some guys run in (after threatening the FDNY with guns) and start some more fires. Even though you already have some pretty good damage that NIST can easily "blame" for the collapse. Then you tell NIST to find some excuse and they take 6 years to come up with some rather esoteric idea of thermally expanding girders, which they completely fabricate.

 

[uke2se]

The problem with "theories" like Chris7's is that you need an ENTIRE NARRATIVE, not just a series of "possible" isolated events. As soon as you attempt to construct a narrative with the isolated events, you get something that doesn't make any sense.

Take WTC7. It's wired for demolition, and now the plan is to depend on the collapse of WTC1 to do some damage and start some fires, which can later be blamed for the "collapse". How do you control that? Won't there be a problem if there is no damage or fire from WTC1? What if there is TOO MUCH damage and it falls down right away? After the damage is there, you get an engineer to lie and tell the FDNY that there is a risk of collapse.

Then, some of the fires go out, and you don't feel like there is ENOUGH fire to "blame" so you have some guys run in (after threatening the FDNY with guns) and start some more fires. Even though you already have some pretty good damage that NIST can easily "blame" for the collapse. Then you tell NIST to find some excuse and they take 6 years to come up with some rather esoteric idea of thermally expanding girders, which they completely fabricate.

When you put it like that it seems rather plausible.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, The building did not collapse from the debris damage. The loads were redistributed by the moment frames. An engineer would have known that.

Really??? that is almost laughable Chris.

An engineer, without the benefit of the structural drawings of this building, without a decent survey of internal damage, all concerning a structure that is somewhat eccentric (built over an existing structure and oddly shaped) is going to stake the lives of a few dozen more FFs on what would be basically an educated guess that the building is stable enough to allow men and equipment inside to fight the fires (above ladder reach)!

Really, you really believe this? Really?
Astounding!

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm over sixty, have a couple years of college, and have been to some interesting places in the world. .

I gotta love it when people start with the 'you seem to have done a lot in your time' in a sarcastic non-believing tone..

I am over 55 and have
fought forest fires
weighed heavy trucks
set up lightning detectors
maintained weather balloon tracking systems
maintained air-ground radio and nav systems
maintained cable TV head ends
maintained all electronic aspects of a TV station

,,,,and that does not count some summer jobs during high school and college (where I excelled in math and physics)

 

[jaydeehess]

It was the fires that got started around 3 or 4 p.m. on the 8th and 9th floors.

Wow, fire in the 7th floor,which goes unchecked, and then later on the two floors above that fire. Yes, of course the fires on 8 and 9 must have been arson. I cannot understand why you are failing to convince others.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow, fire in the 7th floor,which goes unchecked, and then later on the two floors above that fire. Yes, of course the fires on 8 and 9 must have been arson. I cannot understand why you are failing to convince others.

Yep, and they^TM must have gone in THROUGH the 7th floor (can't get to 8 without getting through 7) - which I hope Christopher understands would still be blazing hot fire or not - to start a fire the floor above it.

Wouln't the fire on floor 7 be enough to start a fire on floor 8? Yikes.

 

[000063]

The problem with "theories" like Chris7's is that you need an ENTIRE NARRATIVE, not just a series of "possible" isolated events. As soon as you attempt to construct a narrative with the isolated events, you get something that doesn't make any sense.

Which is why any conspiracy theorist worth his tinfoil hat shuns context, any context, like a vampire shuns garlic. I've encountered a CT so afraid of direct statements that he refused to produce evidence which actually existed for his own side.

 

[000063]

I gotta love it when people start with the 'you seem to have done a lot in your time' in a sarcastic non-believing tone..

I am over 55 and have
fought forest fires
weighed heavy trucks
set up lightning detectors
maintained weather balloon tracking systems
maintained air-ground radio and nav systems
maintained cable TV head ends
maintained all electronic aspects of a TV station

,,,,and that does not count some summer jobs during high school and college (where I excelled in math and physics)

Every time I see lists like that, or look at Jamie Hyneman's list, I always feel inadequate.