On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)

[000063]

Possibly the same firemen that warned Guiliani to move before the twin towers exploded?

Interesting subject change. Very smooth. Almost ergo-level.

 

[NoahFence]

I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. Who told the firemen WTC7 was going to come down?

Cheney.

I red it on teh intertoobz.

 

[ergo]

Yep. Training & experience is what separates firemen from crazy-guy-who-runs-into-a-burning-building.

Unless it comes to reports of molten steel or explosions that resemble explosive demolition. Then firemen don't know a damn thing.

 

[NoahFence]

Unless it comes to reports of molten steel or explosions that resemble explosive demolition. Then firemen don't know a damn thing.

I hate to get all "common sense" on you, ergo - but I would think most explosions resemble explosive demolition.

However, in the case of 9/11 you people are missing some pretty key items. Little things, such as:

Evidence.
Motive.
Evidence.
Witnesses.
Evidence.
Physical Evidence.
A Brain.
Evidence.
A reasonable, credible method by which these explosives would even survive.
Evidence.

It's really the little things that matter.

Say, you ever figure out how the powers that be sorted the therm*te residue beams from the non-therm*te residue beams?

Nah, I know you didn't.

 

[ergo]

Still waiting for dannyB to point out where the view of the south side in full flames is in his video.

I find it bizarre, that with all the video and images we have of the towers, that there isn't a single image of WTC7 in ful conflagration, as it was alleged to be. I also find it bizarre that no one wanted a pic or a closer look at the gash on the south side either. Absolutely no image of the south side of 7 that day. We know there were still people milling around this site late in the day, because we have ground level video of that. Why would no one, not even a news agency, video or photograph such an allegedly massive fire?

A: They would.

 

[NoahFence]

YOU'RE still waiting?

That's a joke, right?

I find it bizarre, that with all the video and images we have of the towers, that there isn't a single image of WTC7 in ful conflagration, as it was alleged to be.

Doesn't matter. Not sure if you're old enough to remember that day, but it was pretty busy. It's not much of a surprise (to rational people) that WTC 7 wasn't very well filmed. It was an empty, useless building at that point. Why don't you cry about the lack of video at WTC 6? Or 3?

So... about that sorting. Any ideas? Do you need to check with your twoofie supervisor to get your talking points?

 

[leftysergeant]

Still waiting for dannyB to point out where the view of the south side in full flames is in his video.

The building was not fully-involved on all floors. Didn't need to be, anyway. Even if it was, you couldn't have seen it through the smoke. It is absurd to ask for such information.

 

[ergo]

The building was not fully-involved on all floors. Didn't need to be, anyway. Even if it was, you couldn't have seen it through the smoke. It is absurd to ask for such information.

Really? You can't see fire through smoke?

And I thought I'd heard nothing from bedunkers but the claim that the building was "fully involved" when it came down. Yeah, here's a page even, from I believe is Mark Roberts' site: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

"with fire on nearly all floors"

"fire was going virtually on every floor"

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

"The flames were coming out of every window of that building"

"Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building."

And yet, not a single image of this fully involved building. From any bystander or any news agency.

Of course, you can see even within the accounts provided on Mark's page, numerous contradictions, not related to time.

 

[NoahFence]

Well I'm convinced that Larry Silverstein had Flight 93 crash in Shanksville now.

Well done, ergo!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Over a bong with Jim Hoffman?

yeah man....there was, like, all this dust..... it was like, heavy.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. Who told the firemen WTC7 was going to come down?

they have what are called "experts". Given that two 100 floor buildings had just done just that (Killing over 300 of their friends, family and colleagues.) and WTC7 was visibly and audibly in trouble and they had no water to fight it.....it was a pretty reasonable decision......and it proved to be the correct one.

Twoofers seem to forget that the Firemen did not want to move clear of WTC7 as it meant they had to stop the rescue attempt for the few trapped people who had survived the collapses of WTC1 and 2.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Possibly the same firemen that warned Guiliani to move before the twin towers exploded?

No that was a Fascist Jewish shape shifting alien lizard...........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Still waiting for dannyB to point out where the view of the south side in full flames is in his video.

I find it bizarre, that with all the video and images we have of the towers, that there isn't a single image of WTC7 in ful conflagration, as it was alleged to be. I also find it bizarre that no one wanted a pic or a closer look at the gash on the south side either. Absolutely no image of the south side of 7 that day. We know there were still people milling around this site late in the day, because we have ground level video of that. Why would no one, not even a news agency, video or photograph such an allegedly massive fire?

A: They would.

Well firstly there was a lot of smoke on the south side (something I beleive to do with the collapse of two large building earlier in the day) and with the wind coming largely from the north the Smoke from the fires in WTC7 billowed around that same south side.
Next the south end of the island was near empty by that time so few if any cameras there and the debris of the WTC towers and the other burning building was between them and WTC 7
Next the fires were lower down in the building so below the height of the many surrounding buildings so hard to get a clear shot of it.
next it was a very sunny day....flames were likely not particular visible from a long distance and no one was close.......
Next no one really much cared about the rather drab anonymous WTC7. It was a minor sideshow compared to the twin towers.
Next no one knew that there would be insane fools who would need it for proof

and finally even if there was such a picture the twoofers would hand wave it away as they do this one when the say the fire was almost out in WTC1

 

[Sabretooth]

And yet, not a single image of this fully involved building. From any bystander or any news agency.

I'm willing to help you with your question. But first, I have to ask: what is your definition of "fully involved" building?

 

[triforcharity]

I'm willing to help you with your question. But first, I have to ask: what is your definition of "fully involved" building?

I would second this. Since even the two different departments had different definitions, they were both fairly similar.

But, we'll see what his opinion is.

 

[000063]

This is the point where he spends a half-dozen posts dodging around giving a definition, probably by trying to ask you what your definition of "fully involved" is, regardless of the fact that you are discussing his claim, not yours.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And yet, not a single image of this fully involved building. From any bystander or any news agency.

Any civilians, including photographers and news camera crews, would have been evacuated when the firefighters were pulled from the area. It's only natural that there would be minimal visual records of the massive fires roaring throughout WTC7.

Fortunately, we have the firefighters and first responders testimony and that's more than enough.

 

[Edx]

And yet, not a single image of this fully involved building. From any bystander or any news agency..

So you're saying the firefighters are lying. Yet we know you're going to claim you arent. Really don't get how you guys can say one thing, contradict yourself a moment later and go right back to saying it again

 

[ergo]

So you're saying the firefighters are lying. Yet we know you're going to claim you arent. Really don't get how you guys can say one thing, contradict yourself a moment later and go right back to saying it again

Why are you blaming truthers for the contradiction? According to Mark Roberts, photographer Steve Spak said, "the building was fully involved in fire." But he didn't take a picture of it. Was his camera not working for the entire time that building 7 was "fully involved in fire"?

Then NIST says: "... only the fires on some of the lower floors -- 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 -- burned out of control."

Another firefighter contradicts himself in his own statement: "...saw it late in the day and like the first seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building."

Thomas McCarthey said: "They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan..." The interviewer clarifies: "So this is late afternoon at this point?" McCarthey says, "Yes, it's probably around 6 o'clock." Which it wouldn't have been, but it obviously wasn't early afternoon.

So why are you blaming "truthers" for the contradictions?

Some firefighters say the WTC 7 was fully engulfed. Others specify which floors were. NIST said it was only a few floors. So does McCarthey. I like to think that firefighters know the difference between smoke and fire, but there is no evidence that can confirm that building 7 was ever fully in flames. I'm not sure what interest 9/11 bedunkers would have in perpetuating this myth.

 

[ergo]

Especially since it makes no difference to your single column weakening = 47-storey global failure theory. All that had to burn was a little area around column 79, lol.