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

[The Big Dog]

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.

Wow, that is easily the clearest demonstration in the history of posting that you didn't understand the NIST report.

I think you are a national treasure, ergo, so much snark, no substance.

A little area, lulz

 

[ergo]

Oh, well please explain to me then what other things happened structurally to precipitate the global collapse.

 

[LSSBB]

Oh, well please explain to me then what other things happened structurally to precipitate the global collapse.

The column did not stand alone. It was subject to the expansion of things joined to it, was it not?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

First off, WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history no matter how you cut it.

Secondly, What you are failing to grasp here is that the firefighters testimonies and NIST data are reconcilable. The NIST report doesn't preclude the presence of fires in other parts of the building. It focuses on the largest body of fire that did the most damage.

The smoke coming out of WTC7 was thick and heavy (cuz, ya know, there was a big ass fire in it), visibility would have been spotty at best. Different observers (mostly FDNY) would have seen different levels of fire at different times.

And as pointed out above, civilians with cameras were withdrawn when the firefighters were pulled, thus leaving little visual records of the fires. But that's ok because we don't really need it to know that building was on fire.

 

[ergo]

S o T, you're just rebunking everything I've just pointed out is false or contradictory.

These contradictions have not been reconciled.

 

[LSSBB]

You mean the elves? The column 79 elves?

Flippant response = acknowledged FAIL

 

[Justin39640]

S o T, you're just rebunking everything I've just pointed out is false or contradictory.

These contradictions have not been reconciled.

You know... For these guys it was a very, very, very long day. Unlike any you or me will ever experience. This testimonial (Thomas McCarthey) is from October 11th, 2001. I would think at this point he probably had to be dragged away from ground zero to be interviewed, not to mention funerals for other firefighters. Not much time to reflect on what happened that day and really collect his thoughts.

 

[ergo]

Oh so McCarthey is another one of these who is "mistaken". I see.

I guess that makes NIST mistaken too, then.

So you think Steve Spak is more accurate? Can you think of a reason why, if he was taking pictures all day that day, he wouldn't take a picture when he noticed building 7 was "fully involved in fire" ? Would Steve Spak know the difference between smoke and fire?

 

[KreeL]

In defense of Spak, he could have suffered major minor brain damage during all the commotion.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

S o T, you're just rebunking everything I've just pointed out is false or contradictory.

These contradictions have not been reconciled.

Yes they have, I just did it for you. I offered a completely plausible explanation for the apparent contradictions.

 

[Sabretooth]

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"?

(snip)...he wouldn't take a picture when he noticed building 7 was "fully involved in fire" ? Would Steve Spak know the difference between smoke and fire?

As I posted already, and you conveniently avoided...

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

 

[Edx]

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"?

So Spak is also lying. I love how you guys casually add so many people into this conspiracy of yours.

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."

So you think he is also lying. Why do truthers claim they aren't saying the firefighters are lying?

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?

Im not blaming truthers here for anything other than the fact that they constantly deny that they are calling the firefighters liars, but they are and you just did it again.

Truthers believe a lot of paranoid stupid stuff, what annoys me about this particular claim is that they make arguments that requires the firefighters to be a bunch of liars or so incompetent they shouldn't be doing the job, or that they are all just mindless drones. But when you point out that they are doing that they claim they never said that the FDNY were in on it. You yourself are saying they are liars right now, so will you admit that you are claiming the 911 firefighters liars and that they have been lying about it in some way ever since 911?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, well please explain to me then what other things happened structurally to precipitate the global collapse.

But you seemed so sure, ergo!

Talking about burning in the "little area" around the single column, I mean that was what NIST said right?

You seemed sure, what happened?

 

[ergo]

So, EdX, was building 7 fully involved in fire at the time of collapse or not? Is Steve Spak right? If so, why didn't he take a picture of it? The newspapers would have eaten it up. This is what he does for a living. Do you think he would go out of his way to avoid taking the dramatic shots that news agencies eat up in favour of boring, slow-moving smoke shots?

Does Spak know the difference between smoke and fire?

And if Spak is right, why does NIST never mention the raging inferno? Why do they only talk about the lower floors? Are they wrong?

Surely, being "debunkers", some of you would have made some effort to clarify this issue by now. It must irk you that you can't produce a single image of this alleged inferno. Surely one or two of you by now has contacted Steve Spak to ask him why he, as a freelance photographer, never bothered to take a picture of this raging inferno. Perhaps Mark Roberts has, since he uses Spak's quote? Did he bother following up on that? Did he bother looking into why the quotes he provides contradict each other?

 

[NoahFence]

The newspapers would have eaten it up.

As shocking as it may seem, you're wrong.

If WTC 7 collapsed on a bright, sunny, otherwise uneventful day you might have a point.


Any ideas how they sorted the thermite residue beams from the clean ones yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

So, EdX, was building 7 fully involved in fire at the time of collapse or not?

Hmmm, things that make you go hmmm....

Like the fact that ergo has been asked REPEATEDLY what the phrase "fully involved" means, yet has studiously ignored answering it.

Wonder why...

 

[ergo]

Why do you need to ask that question when the quotes are provided on Mark Roberts' page?

"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"


If "fully involved" does not mean fire on every floor, why would these firefighters claim this is what they saw?

Bedunkers always harp on some perceived critical semantic distinction when they don't want to, or can't, plainly answer a question. (Like "into" vs. "onto" when describing the path of a building's descent. )

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Does Spak know the difference between smoke and fire?

This is indicative of your desperation. There is only one possible cause of the amount of smoke seen emanating from WTC7, and by no small coincidence, it rhymes with "LIAR".

And if Spak is right, why does NIST never mention the raging inferno?

NIST does mention it. By NIST's numbers, WTC7 was the largest office building fire in galactic history.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do you need to ask that question when the quotes are provided on Mark Roberts' page?

"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"


If "fully involved" does not mean fire on every floor, why would these firefighters claim this is what they saw?

Bedunkers always harp on some perceived critical semantic distinction when they don't want to, or can't, plainly answer a question. (Like "into" vs. "onto" when describing the path of a building's descent. )

Lulz, we all knew you thought it meant "fire on every floor." Because, well, you are a truther.

Here is a pretty good definition, champ:

"Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied."

ZOMG! It doesn't mean "fire on every floor." In fact ergo, the most dangerous part of a fire is usually the smoke.

Type bedunker again, at least THAT you are good at.

 

[Sabretooth]

So, EdX, was building 7 fully involved in fire at the time of collapse or not? Is Steve Spak right? If so, why didn't he take a picture of it? The newspapers would have eaten it up. This is what he does for a living. Do you think he would go out of his way to avoid taking the dramatic shots that news agencies eat up in favour of boring, slow-moving smoke shots?

Does Spak know the difference between smoke and fire?

And if Spak is right, why does NIST never mention the raging inferno? Why do they only talk about the lower floors? Are they wrong?

Surely, being "debunkers", some of you would have made some effort to clarify this issue by now. It must irk you that you can't produce a single image of this alleged inferno. Surely one or two of you by now has contacted Steve Spak to ask him why he, as a freelance photographer, never bothered to take a picture of this raging inferno. Perhaps Mark Roberts has, since he uses Spak's quote? Did he bother following up on that? Did he bother looking into why the quotes he provides contradict each other?

OK, so you're not going to answer my post...but the highlights in your response here clearly illustrate what you think defines the term "fully involved".

Here's the textbook definition:
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

In layman's terms; fully involved means that fire and heat are preventing fireman from going in until they can gain some control by fighting the fire from the outside.

Fully involved does not mean that the building/structure is a gigantic roaring bonfire...or a "raging inferno".

Pictures and video of WTC7 clearly show entire floors of visible fire:


As a firefighter, I would be out of my mind to even considered going into the building with those visible conditions. As an officer, I would report these conditions to command as the building being "fully involved"...therefore alerting all other units at the scene that the building is not safe to enter.

So, again, you are basing your opinion on your ignorance of what the term "fully involved" means.