of WTC7 and things being pulled

[rearnakedchoke]

that is the most insensitive comment you've made yet.

you are a disgrace to the human race

WHAT!?

ok, if ALL these people know it was coming down, and they knew the firefighters were in the towers why not get on the radio and say "hey, get out"?

are the people that didnt worn them to escape also a discrace?

would you worn people to evacuate a building if you knew it was going to collapse? or would you let them stay?

 

[Blutarsky]

Apologize for insulting me and I will.

Okay. I 'll play along. I apologize for whatever I said that insulted you. Now please answer the question.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

WHAT!?

ok, if ALL these people know it was coming down, and they knew the firefighters were in the towers why not get on the radio and say "hey, get out"?

are the people that didnt worn them to escape also a discrace?

would you worn people to evacuate a building if you knew it was going to collapse? or would you let them stay?

If you are referring to WTC 7, they did. If you are referring to WTC 1 & 2, they tried; communication was so poor they couldn't get through to them.

 

[Josh Redstone]

@Decider

They didn't think WTC 7 was going to fall until after the collapse of the two towers; the collapse of the towers contributed to the damage of WTC 7. If they could have 'worned' the firefighters, I'm sure they would have. You should be aware of this basic fact.

EDIT - Beating a dead horse...sorry.

 

[jujigatami]

somebody should have told the FF on the 78 floor

Might have been a little hard considering that WTC7 was only 47 floors high.

Genius.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Wow, the first JREF to actually answer questions posed to them without side-stepping!

No, I also don't know how they knew, that's why I don't talk as if I know the reason why they knew it was going to collapse.

but you do talk as if you know larry and FC were both in on the demolition of the building

you talk as if you know "pull" means explosively demolish

you talk as if you know both larry and a firefighter were using the term in this sense


how do you know these things?

 

[Gravy]

i just made a sandwich, not in a frenzy to find out what they say happened..

1) planes weakened towers
2) explosion blew off fire retardent
3) most fuel was expelled in fireball
4) fuel seeped down to the lobby
5) steel trusels became weak from heat, and givin the plane impact, weakened beams, the towers pancaked one floor on top of another..in 11 seconds..

more or less right?

Less. 1 is incomplete, 2 is incomplete, 3 is likely wrong according to NIST, 4 is irrelevant in terms of the cause of the collapse, 5 does not include the inward pull on the outer columns due to truss (not trusel) buckling, which was the mechanism that led to collapse, according to NIST, and the term "pancaking" is inaccurate. A simple way of describing NIST's conclusions is the the towers collapsed because of:

1) Massive structural damage caused by the airliners
2) Loss of fire protection on structural steel due to impact and explosion
3) Massive, unchecked fires on multiple floors simultaneously

These reasons are interdependent. Without one of them, the towers probably would have stood, according to NIST.

Then, the collapses were initiated by the sagging of floors and inward pulling on exterior columns.

NIST's FAQ is a good summary of answers to common CT questions.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

WHAT!?

ok, if ALL these people know it was coming down, and they knew the firefighters were in the towers why not get on the radio and say "hey, get out"?

are the people that didnt worn them to escape also a discrace?

would you worn people to evacuate a building if you knew it was going to collapse? or would you let them stay?

as per the topic we are talking about WTC7, the firefighter on the 78th floor you are referring to was in WTC2, FDNY was not anticipating the south towers collapse

BTW since there were still people in the south tower it is entirely plausible that firefighters WERE told to clear out, but didnt because the civilian evacuation was still in progress

 

[Gravy]

WHAT!?

ok, if ALL these people know it was coming down, and they knew the firefighters were in the towers why not get on the radio and say "hey, get out"?

are the people that didnt worn them to escape also a discrace?

would you worn people to evacuate a building if you knew it was going to collapse? or would you let them stay?

The order to evacuate the north tower was given immediately after the south tower's collapse.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

lol,

my bad, i was off topic with the towers, then when he commented on the wtc7, i thought he was refering to that..no biggie.

and gravy..

1) Massive structural damage caused by the airliners
2) Loss of fire protection on structural steel due to impact and explosion
3) Massive, unchecked fires on multiple floors simultaneously

those are all guesses....givin they are quesses by a reliable company, but thats where i have the problem,

the pancake theory started on 9/11...
NIST just came by and put an "OFFICIAL" stamp on it...imo..

 

[rearnakedchoke]

forget it...

back on topic...sorry continue..

 

[Gravy]

1) Yes, would that be incorrect?

Which more accurately reflects the condition of WTC 7 on the afternoon, according to the first responders?

A) Not good.
B) In danger of imminent collapse.

I await your answer.

2) No because it's hard for me to read your stuff without laughing to hard about your type of "logic".

So you refuse to read page after page of accounts from first responders of the condition of WTC 7, of the massive damage, massive fires, expected collapse, and decisions to withdraw to save lives?

And you say you're interested in knowing the "Truth" about 9/11?

What a despicable person you are.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

NIST just came by and put an "OFFICIAL" stamp on it...imo..

i dont think i need to inform that whether or not NIST put an "official stamp" on the pancake theory is not a matter of opinion, so opinion really dont count

pancake was FEMAs hypothesis, and NIST also used it as their hypothesis

hwoever in the course of their investigation evidence did not support pancake collapse, so their conclusions are different

 

[Gravy]

lol,

my bad, i was off topic with the towers, then when he commented on the wtc7, i thought he was refering to that..no biggie.

and gravy..

1) Massive structural damage caused by the airliners
2) Loss of fire protection on structural steel due to impact and explosion
3) Massive, unchecked fires on multiple floors simultaneously

those are all guesses....givin they are quesses by a reliable company, but thats where i have the problem,

False. ETA: Would you care to explain why you think they're guesses?

And NIST is not a "company."

the pancake theory started on 9/11...
NIST just came by and put an "OFFICIAL" stamp on it...imo..

False. If you had read my previous post, the NIST report, or NIST's FAQ which I linked for you, you would know that NIST does NOT support the "pancake theory."

You're digging deeper and deeper, rearnaked. Are you going to study up on this subject, or are you just here to make a fool of yourself?

 

[WildCat]

assuming, it traveled down the shafts.. assuming the explosions in the lobby were actually "jet fuel"

The assumptions were based on the evidence. Such as: the amount of oxygen (needed to support the combustion of the fuel) available on the floor of impact, and the amount of fuel on the planes. The oxygen available meant that only so much of the fuel could burn, and the rest had to go someplace.

Now, what are your assumptions based on?

 

[Gravy]

assuming, it traveled down the shafts.. assuming the explosions in the lobby were actually "jet fuel"

Why assume that when with the slightest amount of research you can know it?

 

[Arus808]

The assumptions were based on the evidence. Such as: the amount of oxygen (needed to support the combustion of the fuel) available on the floor of impact, and the amount of fuel on the planes. The oxygen available meant that only so much of the fuel could burn, and the rest had to go someplace.

Now, what are your assumptions based on?

lets not forget the survivors in teh elevators and the lobby and those who came out of elevators, with 2nd-3rd degree burns who smelt fuel.

It was all presented in the naudet film as well.

 

[Killtown]

1) Which more accurately reflects the condition of WTC 7 on the afternoon, according to the first responders?

A) Not good.
B) In danger of imminent collapse.

2) I await your answer.

3) So you refuse to read page after page of accounts from first responders of the condition of WTC 7, of the massive damage, massive fires, expected collapse, and decisions to withdraw to save lives?

And you say you're interested in knowing the "Truth" about 9/11?

4) What a despicable person you are.

1) "A" unless you can prove to me the entire building was in danger of "imminent collapse".

2) I've been awaiting your answers too.

3) Only from you page. I've read a lot of accounts on other sites.

4) That's how I feel about people who defend the 9/11 inside job perps.

 

[Arus808]

1) "A" unless you can prove to me the entire building was in danger of "imminent collapse".

You seem to have a problem in comprehension
the Firefighters on SCENE after witnessing the collapse of both TOWERS, felt (AS they rightly did), that due to the damage and uncontrolled fire seen, the creaking noises they heard and that the building was about the collapse.

That is all they needed to make an assessment.

That's what they did, based on FACTORS that were apparent at the time.

 

[Blutarsky]

Killtown:

Creeeeek...creeek....creeek...

I apologized and I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question...