This is a great article. It totally debunks the idea put out by MacKey and Roberts that the WTC 7 foreknowledge was a rational thing for the firemen because of all the fire and debris damage.
No. Mackey and Roberts may
agree with that idea, but it does not belong to them and they did not originate this evaluation.
This article shows that only 7 firemen actually made observations that they thought WTC 7 would fall, while 50 "were told" it would fall.
No; more than seven firefighters - from the rank-and-file on up to chief officers - made direct observations of the condition of the building, and appropriate evaluations of its condition. And, as has been pointed out, being "told" is not mutually exclusive with making one's own observation and evaluation.
These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid,
Subjective. I note that
you sound confused and paranoid, as well as ignorant; you can't even figure out that...
and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.
... doesn't make sense, because you can't contradict something that hasn't been formulated yet. Moreover, this statement incorrectly conflates observation of empirical collapse indicators with an effort to model the specific course of the collapse itself. In other words, not only have you no idea what you're saying, you couldn't even formulate the thought properly.
MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?
16 thought WTC 7 would fall more than 2 hours before it did, while 6 thought it would fall more than 4 hours before it did. Wow!
None of this makes any sense at all, unless it were a controlled demolition, with a cover story being put out by Giuliani's office and/or some "engineering type person".
You and your theologian are remarkably arrogant and ignorant.
Collapse indicators such as observed by FDNY at WTC 7 warn firefighters that a building is in imminent danger of collapse. Such indicators do not mean that the building
must collapse, or in what exact fashion, or when it will happen. From a firefighter's perspective, they mean that it's time to get the crews out and establish a collapse zone. That does not mean that a firefighter can't look at a heavily involved, heavily damaged building and judge that it's collapse
is inevitable - especially after the collapse of two larger, heavily involved, heavily damaged structures a few hours before. (The last is actually the one thing that MacQueen brought out that was actually relevant; but, of course, the "truthers" don't seem very interested in NYPD warnings of imminent collapse at WTC 1/2 earlier in the day...)
I agree with
leftysergeant; I am a (volunteer) firefighter with training in building construction and collapse, and I find that FDNY's observations and evaluations are perfectly reasonable and in line with the observed conditions that day. MacQueen is merely a pompous blowhard with no expertise and no clue of firefighting or firefighters, whose analysis would be laughable if it wasn't such a slimy, underhanded assault on the integrity and competence of FDNY.
Your own post has even less of interest, if possible, than MacQueen's silly bloviations, but I'll make you the same offer I've made others like you: I'll chip in for your transportation to an actual FDNY firehouse to give your spiel in person, to actual firefighters... as long as I can be there with some popcorn.
