Lets see if i got Sunder right on WTC7

[Grizzly Bear]

Please cite something proving that he actually says this. This would be video or something posted on the wtc.nist.gov site, not a report from infowars or whatever. If you can't do this, I will have to assume that you or whoever you got this from is making it up. From what I gather, Sunder says that the water mains were cut by the twin towers collapsing which makes perfect sense to me and any other reasonable person.

Why do 9/11 deniers have to lie so much?

"Supposedly" based on the sites I've found on google he says this in Appendix C of the World Trade Center performance Study by FEMA, however, after browsing through and searching the quote using Acrobat's search function I could not locate the statement. It would be nice if roundhead could kindly link to the original source for those less familiar with the material... so as the statement could be looked upon in context

 

[johnny karate]

The Govt didnt want 7 to live people, its not even debatable, they wanted to get everybody out of it, pull firefighters from it, let it burn till it appeared somewhat visually viable and plausible to blow it up and blame it on fire.



How anybody with even a double digit IQ cant see this, is beyond me.

No members of the FDNY have come forward to express this belief. You've already accused them of being cowards. Do you also think they are stupid?

 

[pomeroo]

in your tiny little nano brain, i dont suppose you are aware that trucks carry water aboard, and ladders.

I am unaware of any fires that were real high up in the building.

The fact is, whoever was the local "rep" of the operation that was 9/11, ordered the t0wel thrown in on 7 mighty early, to the chagrin of firefighters who likely would have embarassed the 9/11 planners who would have to demo a building that didnt have any fires.

As the trade center was adjacent to the waterfront, and me just thinking of how to bring water to bear as a layman, i would haveferried fire trucks back and forth fronm Jersey by barge till it was put out, assuming road issues prevented other means being viable.

Your hysteria is quite comical. You do realize that you've short-circuited? On another thread, you belched out a mindless rant displaying your total ignorance of demolition. Here, you contend that one of your imaginary super-villains "ordered the towel thrown in on 7 might early" so that they wouldn't suffer the embarrassment of demolishing a building without fires!

Say what?

I mean, you are among the least intelligent, most poorly-informed conspiracy liars running loose, but you--even you!--must understand that you composed an entire post purporting to prove that WTC 7 was blown up and now you blithely admit that it wasn't!

I like your childish fantasy about ferrying the firetrucks. What do you suppose a real firefighter would think of it? I wonder why you haven't ever spoken with any real firefighters.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And this spear in the heart:

You have a serious problem citing sources, roundhead. Please correct this.

(I have a suspicion about where you copied that text from, but I'm withholding it in order to give you a fair chance at being an honest person. I'm stupid like that sometimes...)

 

[WildCat]

You have a serious problem citing sources, roundhead. Please correct this.

It's hard to source a lie, even a lie you copied and pasted from a "truth" web site.

How many lies do you need to tell for The Truth™ roundhead?

 

[Wolrab]

Even supposing that ferrying firetrucks to the scene was possible, how long would it have taken to organize and implement such a logistical nightmare?


My local rural volunteer fire departments have mutual aid contracts that ensure there is something available to respond to any new fires or other emergencies that may occur while the original emergency is being dealt with. Why would anyone let the rest of the town burn down because all available resources are tied up?

 

[mrbaracuda]

(I have a suspicion about where you copied that text from, but I'm withholding it in order to give you a fair chance at being an honest person. I'm stupid like that sometimes...)

I do, too. After some googling.
Gee, roundhead, don't you think it would be better to read the original source instead of some twisted '9/11 was an inside job' crap lie?

You've probably never been on this page, so here goes:

What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.

Why did WTC 7’s sprinkler systems fail during the fires?

The sprinkler systems did not fail. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 damaged the city water main. The water main served as both the primary and backup source of water for the sprinkler system in the lower 20 floors. Therefore, the sprinkler system could not function. In contrast, the sprinklers and standpipes on the building’s middle levels (21st floor through 39th floor) and upper levels (40th floor through 47th floor) received water from two large overhead storage tanks on the 46th floor, and used the city’s water mains as a backup.

 

[WildCat]

I do, too. After some googling.
Gee, roundhead, don't you think it would be better to read the original source instead of some twisted '9/11 was an inside job' crap lie?

You've probably never been on this page, so here goes:

No need to help roundhead out as he parrots the lies of the "truth" movement mrbarracuda. Just keep giving him the rope he needs to hang himself.

 

[mrbaracuda]

No need to help roundhead out as he parrots the lies of the "truth" movement mrbarracuda. Just keep giving him the rope he needs to hang himself.

I mean, the factsheet page isn't the same as the presentation, but damn, I would be very surprised to see him say that. What's wrong with people like roundhead, seriously? That is something I just can't get my head around.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No need to help roundhead out as he parrots the lies of the "truth" movement mrbarracuda. Just keep giving him the rope he needs to hang himself.

Helping him hasn't done anything as he seems quite content as it is depicting his logic and distortion of witness testimony as status quo

 

[TJM]

As the trade center was adjacent to the waterfront, and me just thinking of how to bring water to bear as a layman, i would haveferried fire trucks back and forth fronm Jersey by barge till it was put out, assuming road issues prevented other means being viable.

Well, no. FDNY, as well as other large cities with waterfronts, operate fireboats. These were used on 9/11 to refill trucks. Firemen also stretched lines from the boat and fought the fires that way.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110137.PDF

 

[bje]

Lets Discuss Wtc7 shall we,...

I did. Over a year ago. You lost.

 

[A W Smith]

Lying Rivethead

Roundhead is no more than a troll posting a cacophony of lies. He has put words in Dr Sunders mouth

And this spear in the heart:


"After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
...
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he [Sunder] said."

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/NISTPressConference082208.pdf

But despite damage that severed seven exterior columns, building 7 remained standing. The debris from Tower One, however, started fires on at least ten floors of the building. The fires burned out of control on six of these ten floors for about seven hours. The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC towers, so the sprinklers in building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing when sprinklers either did not function or were not existing.

 

[jaydeehess]

from post 129

Did you or did you not state that WTC 7 could have been saved?

Does this not imply then that you feel that in your expert opinion, there was sufficient water, equipment and personell at the site and that FF's on the scene would be particularily peeved, to say the least, that they were being pulled away from a bulding they could save?

So I ask again for a quote from a FF on the scene who states in the suppressed until recently testimony, that there was sufficient water to fight the fires or that the building fires could have been fought?

I ask again what, in that recently released testimony, illustrates that the fires could have been fought and that FF's believe that the building was demolished using controlled demolition? Please note that I do not ask for testimony concerning the quality of the air after the fact of all the structures having fallen.

...Gulianni would not be recognized by any NYFD brass, much less rank and file firefighters, as having the authority to call off a fire fighting effort.

...Then where is the testimony from the professionals to back your contention that political interference caused them to abandon a fire fighting effort in a building that officially collapsed due to that fire, causing millions of dollars more in damage to adjacent buildings?

No where, it does not exist and thus your "thesis" is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky, pure conjecture.

Still awaiting those quotes that illustrate your 'thesis', Roundhead.

I also see that others are awaiting your quote of Sunder saying that the NYC shut off the water mains rather than that the mains were cut by the collapse of the towers. (after which the mains may well have been isolated so as to not have water simply pouring out at the break)

Perhaps you'd also like to emmunerate the fire companies that were called into action at the site throughout the day. Do you know for sure that companies from miles away were not on site? Do you know what they were doing? You are making the extrodinary claims and using your own suppositions to back those claims. So far, when pressed, you have not backed one up with anything other than second hand quotes and pure conjecture.

Still waiting.........
Still waiting.........
Still waiting.........
Still waiting.........

 

[jaydeehess]

Jeebus be merciful

And this spear in the heart:


"After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
...
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he [Sunder] said."

Deliberate attribution of someone else's conjecture to Sunder, or illustration that Roundhead not only does not use punctuation correctly, but that he also does not understand it when he sees it used?

Roundhead, it is ae911truth.info that is stating that NYC officials cut off the water. Sunder simply says that water was not available and if one then looks for the why Sunder said it one sees NIST clearly states that the water mains were cut when the towers fell and THAT is why the sprinkler systems of the lower floors were inoperable.

 

[kookbreaker]

Golly? You mean someone in the the truth movement was not honest about their quoting?

Perish the thought!

 

[boloboffin]

Jeebus be merciful



Deliberate attribution of someone else's conjecture to Sunder, or illustration that Roundhead not only does not use punctuation correctly, but that he also does not understand it when he sees it used?

Roundhead, it is ae911truth.info that is stating that NYC officials cut off the water. Sunder simply says that water was not available and if one then looks for the why Sunder said it one sees NIST clearly states that the water mains were cut when the towers fell and THAT is why the sprinkler systems of the lower floors were inoperable.

Please be careful of your .info.

 

[roundhead]

I have come across the quote" cut off" on many different places on the net. If he in fact didnt say that, i publically apologize.

 

[uk_dave]

I have come across the quote" cut off" on many different places on the net. If he in fact didnt say that, i publically apologize.

Ahhhhh but will the people who fed you that quote also be prepared to apologise to you?

Think about it. Be careful of who you trust.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I have come across the quote" cut off" on many different places on the net. If he in fact didnt say that, i publically apologize.

Glad to see you consult primary sources! Really, I am very relieved.