Lets see if i got Sunder right on WTC7

[jaydeehess]

"McCormack said that around 75% of police, firemen and rescue personnel that he had personally spoke with now believe there is a cover-up pertaining to 9/11 and that many had been threatened that "if they ever open their mouth their pensions are at risk."

Third hand quote duly noted. (someone reports that McCormack said that others said...) THAT certainly would NOT be allowed in a court of law.

Now perhaps you would show us , with quotes from the FF's themselves" just what the cover up they complain about entails.

Do you, for instance, have a quote from a FF who states that there was ample water, equipment and personell to have fought the fires in WTC 7 and that he was peeved about being told first to not fight the fires and then later to shut up about it on penalty of losing his union contract pension?

 

[jaydeehess]

BTW roundhead
their - a plural possessive - belonging to, or having to do with, them
they're - a contraction for the two words 'they are'

 

[jaydeehess]

I have noted, throughout this thread, none of you parrots have anything to say about the testimonies having to be forced out, by other victims groups, and even the NY Times, so as they could see the light of day.

It is meaningless as far as the contention that WTC 7 was a CD. If you wish to argue politics because you lack any technical knowledge then find a forum in which to do so.

Now as far as whether or not any fire fighters were told to not fight fires that they felt could be fought to save a building that was only minimally damaged then let's have them. Do attempt to be specific please.

 

[johnny karate]

I am done with this thread

What a shock.

You accuse the FDNY of cowardice and complicity and then flee when cornered by your own despicable words.

Or maybe you're just busy accusing other people of complicity in the deaths of their loved ones. Who's next on your list? NYPD? Families of the victims?

Run along now, tiger. I've paddled your behind enough for today. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

 

[jaydeehess]

Lets Discuss Wtc7 shall we, specifically Sunder's comments regarding the Nist Study of the buildings demise.


Firstly, he seems to say it was caused by building contents fire. I give him credit for singling out his reason, and pointing to fire specifically as the cause.

As he has in fact(Nist) come to this conclusion, its apparent we can completely take structural damage from debris off the table(Other than the fires such debris started)

We also are now aware that had the sprinkler system worked, we could expect 7 would have survived 9/11.

We also now learn that the joint expansion failure that Sunder explains, is the first such failure known to man. And as such, this failure for the first time in history, brought down a steel framed skyscraper.

We also learn that because a volume of noise that would be expected of a controlled demolition wasnt observed/heard, it couldnt have been a CD.

We also learn it would likely take 100 pounds of thermate attached to a column(in fact the very failure column)to produce the result we saw.

We also learn that the thermite would have been expected to stick to this column to do its evil duty" It would have to keep pushing against the column" or something to that effect.

Are we OK so far??


For starters, where did Sunder reference the amount of thermite needed, how does he know it would or wouldnt "stick" to the column, and how does he know how much noise it would make.Did Nist perform varioUs tests with different attachmEnt methods to conclude attachmant was an issue as thermite was "eating through" a column?

Did Nist hire a company to set a test of a thermite cutter charge and determine how loud it was as a reference to compare.

Somebody kindly point me to the section of the Nist that deals with these studies.

I am done with this thread, until someone steps up and explains the virtue of the descision that was made to hide and suppress these statements for years from the American public.

From asking about technical details to paranoid accusations without offering any substance.

Now he scurries away having believed that he successfully derailed his own thread into the paranoid political arena.

Given that you are still lurking this thread I repeat;

perhaps you would show us , with quotes from the FF's themselves" just what the cover up they complain about entails.

Do you, for instance, have a quote from a FF who states that there was ample water, equipment and personell to have fought the fires in WTC 7 and that he was peeved about being told first to not fight the fires and then later to shut up about it on penalty of losing his union contract pension?

and of course more to the point do you have any evidence that such was a common thought among rank and file FF's on that day?

 

[jaydeehess]

What a shock.

You accuse the FDNY of cowardice and complicity and then flee when cornered by your own despicable words.

.

Well not quite johnny, roundhead would be quick to point out, I am sure, that he does not accuse the FF's of being cowards. He accuses their superiors of being in-on-it and ordering the FF's to behave like cowards, which orders they quickly complied with.

 

[roundhead]

Parrots? All you do is repeat the failed ideas of the truth movement. No evidence is supplied as you spew false information and zero evidence to support your failed ideas.

I can't help it if you do not understand fire and steel. You have not shown one single thing NIST got wrong in their WTC7 report, and you never will. Never! That is failure!

Nist proved nothing in that report. Nothing. Its pure computer generated guesswork.

Instead of modeling a cd(which best fits observed events)they instead used anti science to try and prove a phenomenon that is the first of its kind in history.

Just like the Towers, they didnt truly consider all evidence, and instead spent three years trying to make a false unproven assertion palatable and somewhat aligned with actual events.They failed miserably. As huge a lie as they are telling, it was obviously not easy to explain, thats why it still doesnt shine, even with three years of a buffer working on it.

They failed miserably, and its now on record.

One can now look at the demolition, listen to Sunder's lame attempt to explain it away, and see his odious presentation for what it is, perfume on a pig.

They have painted themselves into a corner.

We can now all see that the foot was in fact on the line, and its a 2, not a three

 

[kookbreaker]

So,

Roundhead claims an inside job and claims that Firefighters pensions are being threatened, and that somehow is enough to keep the firefighters silent about their brothers being killed?

To support this, he uses a third hand quote, from a non-FDNY source, about an irrelevant subject (air quality issues) and to boost the claim he (or his source) declares the source to be a 'whistle blower' over a subject that did not need whistleblowing .

After making this suggestion that this is enough to cow firefighters into submission, he then turns around and bawls that he has great respect for the firefighter's bravery. Then runs away from the thread when it seems he can't even convince himself of that anymore.

Gotcha.

 

[beachnut]

Nist proved nothing in that report. Nothing. Its pure computer generated guesswork. ...

Pathetic, you talk and skip the evidence, why? You have no evidence to back up your statements. Your post is false; based on your failed fantasy ideas; just talk and opinions based on nothing.


You lack the basic understanding of fire, and you failed to read the NIST report! You will not understand it anyway.

 

[applecorped]

52 and sane, 52 and sane........

 

[Grizzly Bear]

they instead used anti science to try and prove a phenomenon that is the first of its kind in history.

You mean like the first time in history two passenger airliners were used as missiles to strike the tallest structures in New York City. You mean like the first time in modern human history the explosion of a comet 5 miles in earth's atmosphere is observed via seismic and after effects 100 years ago (Tungunska [sp?]? How do you think they determined the trajectory of that comet without having seen it? OH! They simulated it!

You truthers seem to love using he "1st time in history canard" for every one of your arguments. Tell me something tiger... are you implying that steel cannot weaken in any kind of fire? Are you implying that heat does not cause materials, steel included, to expand and contract under thermal changes? Are you implying that long spanning beams can indefinitely withstand the combination of thermal expansion, contraction and creep stresses? Do you somehow expect connections for these structural members to be over designed to the point of invincibility?

By implying that fire cannot possibly cause a steel structure to collapse you also imply that the material properties of steel are unproven. Are you prepared to defend such a stance roundhead?

Will you ever give me a building to reference that is either the same material, Structural system, height (similar).

Will you also ever provide a convincing example that suffered the same impact damage, had primary and secondary means of fire fighting impeded?

Your "1st time in history" canard has a lot of implications. You do not understand the difference between credibility premise and conclusion. You launch ad hominem attacks on NIST. There's no convincing you, afterall NIST are a government organization and you and other CT'ists work based on the assumption that the entire government, and all of it's institutions are either in on the conspiracy or have been intimidated to comply.

Thank goodness good science and logic speaks for itself, the truth movement does not have the capacity for it.


Congratulations

 

[johnny karate]

Nist proved nothing in that report. Nothing. Its pure computer generated guesswork.

roundhead, do you think that NIST acted in this manner because they are cowards the way you think the FDNY are cowards, or do you think they were in on it from the beginning?

 

[johnny karate]

Well not quite johnny, roundhead would be quick to point out, I am sure, that he does not accuse the FF's of being cowards. He accuses their superiors of being in-on-it and ordering the FF's to behave like cowards, which orders they quickly complied with.

I feel we're splitting hairs here. But I think we can both agree the important point being made is that roundhead has absolutely no respect for the FDNY as an organization or any of its members.

 

[Metullus]

You mean like the first time in history two passenger airliners were used as missiles to strike the tallest structures in New York City. You mean like the first time in modern human history the explosion of a comet 5 miles in earth's atmosphere is observed via seismic and after effects 100 years ago (Tungunska [sp?]? How do you think they determined the trajectory of that comet without having seen it? OH! They simulated it! * snip*

I'm kinda bummed. I thought that Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals in the Olympics. I guess that he could not have done so since that such a feat has never happened before.

I'll be writing NBC...

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Well not quite johnny, roundhead would be quick to point out, I am sure, that he does not accuse the FF's of being cowards. He accuses their superiors of being in-on-it and ordering the FF's to behave like cowards, which orders they quickly complied with.

I feel we're splitting hairs here. But I think we can both agree the important point being made is that roundhead has absolutely no respect for the FDNY as an organization or any of its members.

My point was to illustrate that Roundhead, while claiming to admire the bravery of the FDNY assumes that these brave men could be ordered to be cowardly without complaint.

So far he has produced no FF quote that backs his contention that the fires in WTC 7 could have been fought because they had ample water, equipment and manpower to do so much less show a consensus (or even a minority opinion in a significant number of FF's) among FF's that such was the case.

What does RH do instead?
He states, on his own expertise, that there was sufficient water, assumes that trucks from 100 miles away could and would be brought in to lower Manhattan, claims that the gov't ordered WTC 7 to be left alone to burn until the CD could be accomplished, but names only Larry Silverstein as the supposed issuer of this order. Silverstein who no NYFD member would recognize as having the authority to tell them to abandon a building that could be saved.

ETA; edited to remove an ad hom

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm kinda bummed. I thought that Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals in the Olympics. I guess that he could not have done so since that such a feat has never happened before.

I'll be writing NBC...

Be sure to include that it was reported that Bolt did the 200M in 19.30 seconds, also something that had never been done before.

Obviously the video was faked. I blame the Jamaican equivalent of the CIA.

 

[roundhead]

You mean like the first time in history two passenger airliners were used as missiles to strike the tallest structures in New York City. You mean like the first time in modern human history the explosion of a comet 5 miles in earth's atmosphere is observed via seismic and after effects 100 years ago (Tungunska [sp?]? How do you think they determined the trajectory of that comet without having seen it? OH! They simulated it!

You truthers seem to love using he "1st time in history canard" for every one of your arguments. Tell me something tiger... are you implying that steel cannot weaken in any kind of fire? Are you implying that heat does not cause materials, steel included, to expand and contract under thermal changes? Are you implying that long spanning beams can indefinitely withstand the combination of thermal expansion, contraction and creep stresses? Do you somehow expect connections for these structural members to be over designed to the point of invincibility?

By implying that fire cannot possibly cause a steel structure to collapse you also imply that the material properties of steel are unproven. Are you prepared to defend such a stance roundhead?

Will you ever give me a building to reference that is either the same material, Structural system, height (similar).

Will you also ever provide a convincing example that suffered the same impact damage, had primary and secondary means of fire fighting impeded?

Your "1st time in history" canard has a lot of implications. You do not understand the difference between credibility premise and conclusion. You launch ad hominem attacks on NIST. There's no convincing you, afterall NIST are a government organization and you and other CT'ists work based on the assumption that the entire government, and all of it's institutions are either in on the conspiracy or have been intimidated to comply.

Thank goodness good science and logic speaks for itself, the truth movement does not have the capacity for it.


Congratulations

what do airplanes have to do with wtc7?...You need to do some elementary reading.


And yes, i dont believe the govt about 9/11. It obviously makes me a whole lot smarter than most on this site. Why, you say, because you parrots slurp up this fantasy, i dont.



The Nist report is a nothing more than an official template laid over the actual observed events. Problem is, nothing lines up.


1. Steel that could well have provided enough information to draw a conclusion that is honest and forthright was removed from the site, which itself borders on criminal behavior, if in fact it isnt . This one little detail makes the investigation a farce.

2. No testing was done to see if CD fit obserrved events.

3. No mention nor attention was paid to temps not consistant with office fires being noted under the building.

4.The explanation given was without parallel, and completely unknown to the prior universe.

The collapse was sudden, shows many striking similarities to a CD,yet even with these numerous similarities, Nist, rather than spend any real brainpower in checking them out, instead states THEY have no record of noise of the magnitude to have been a CD. Yet they apparently did not test to confirm what noise would be generated with various types of CD that could have been used, as a basis for this absurd assumption.

They make the wild assertion that 100 pounds of devices couldnt have been carried in the building.

They state thermite wouldnt have stuck to a column, yet do no tests to confirm this.

In short, they claim as fact an event which has never before happened, throw out any other events as cause that have in fact happened, and provide no data or tests results on how they came to dismiss these other possibilities.

And then Sunder after stating, and i paraphrase that this is what we would expect would happen with this type of failure, answers a question"how would you know what to expect as it never has happened before" with some mumbo jumbo that a 2nd grader would laugh at.

To sum it up, the Nist spent three years trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and the illfitment is now in the public domain.

 

[roundhead]

I feel we're splitting hairs here. But I think we can both agree the important point being made is that roundhead has absolutely no respect for the FDNY as an organization or any of its members.

I think we can all agree that these brave guys testimony regarding 9/11 was hidden/swept under the carpet/marginalized, only given the light of day because of intense pressure, and most everybody at Jref is fine with all of that.

Jref must be fine with that because they refuse to address it, dont admit its Govt did everything it could to suppress it, and took zero account of it in any of its "official reports".


JREF= Lets stall in the courts any eyewitness testimony that pokes gaping holes in the official lie, and spit on anybody whom that bothers.

Gotcha

Be civil and polite.

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

 

[jaydeehess]

asked once...
no response
asked twice...
no response

So third time lucky? or crickets?

perhaps you would show us , with quotes from the FF's themselves" just what the cover up they complain about entails.

Do you, for instance, have a quote from a FF who states that there was ample water, equipment and personell to have fought the fires in WTC 7 and that he was peeved about being told first to not fight the fires [ETA:and of course you can also show that it was an opinion shared by a significant number of the FF's on the scene] and then later to shut up about it on penalty of losing his union contract pension?

 

[jaydeehess]

I think we can all agree that these brave guys testimony regarding 9/11 was hidden/swept under the carpet/marginalized, only given the light of day because of intense pressure, and most everybody at Jref is fine with all of that.

Jref must be fine with that because they refuse to address it, dont admit its Govt did everything it could to supress it, and took zero account of it in any of its "official reports".
...
.........JREF= Lets stall in the courts any eyewitness testimony that pokes gaping holes in the official lie, and spit on anybody whom that bothers.

Testimony about what SPECIFICALLY , roundhead?

I have asked several times now for you to produce testimony that the FF's believed that WTC7 fires could be fought and the building saved.

You have been asked who on the NYFD was in-on-it and ordered the FF's to stand down from WTC 7.


I would assume that I am on your ignore list except that you addressed JK's reply to my post in which he quotes me, yet you do so without addressing the point I made.