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

[ergo]

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

Ooo! Oooo! I bet you were just smackin' yer lips, waitin' for that one! LULZ!


Joke's on you, mate. Unless you're now saying that the folks quoted below are lying? :

"the building was fully involved in fire."

"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"

Does "fully involved" not mean fire? Do these firefighters not know the difference between fire and smoke? Why are you now trying to suggest that "fully involved" doesn't mean "fully involved in fire", as per Steve Spak's claim? Why unnecessarily move the goalposts, when it doesn't help any of your claims? Lol.

 

[Edx]

Ooo! Oooo! I bet you were just smackin' yer lips, waitin' for that one! LULZ!


Joke's on you, mate. Unless you're now saying that the folks quoted below are lying? :

You are the one that says the are lying as are every single firefighter that disagrees with you about the state of 7. Since none of them have come up in support of you in over a decade this means that they have ALL been lying in some way since then. Just admit that you are saying the firefighters are a bunch of liars.

 

[ergo]

EdX, was the building fully involved in fire or not? Why can't you just answer the question?

If it was, why doesn't NIST mention it, and why didn't Steve Spak take pictures of it?

If it wasn't, why do the above firefighters claim that it was?

Just answer the question. It's not hard.

 

[Edx]

EdX, was the building fully involved in fire or not? Why can't you just answer the question?

By definition of "fully involved" it was fully involved.

If it wasn't, why do the above firefighters claim that it was?

Why did some say every floor was on fire? I guess you'd have to ask them, they were there.

Why won't you answer the question I'm asking? Will you admit that you are calling the 911 firefighters liars? I just want you to admit something most truthers refuse to do.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ooo! Oooo! I bet you were just smackin' yer lips, waitin' for that one! LULZ!

Joke's on you, mate. Unless you're now saying that the folks quoted below are lying? :

"the building was fully involved in fire."

"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"

Does "fully involved" not mean fire? Do these firefighters not know the difference between fire and smoke? Why are you now trying to suggest that "fully involved" doesn't mean "fully involved in fire", as per Steve Spak's claim? Why unnecessarily move the goalposts, when it doesn't help any of your claims? Lol.

Lulz, yes ergo, I was waiting for you to actually make an objective statement, because we all knew you were "trutherizing." You screwed up, instead of relying on snark and evasion, you actually exposed your ignorance. COOL!

Now, it is pretty clear you ignored the definition I supplied. So lets look at your quotes "closely" this time:

"the building was fully involved in fire." TRUE

"with fire on nearly all floors" Note the Nearly, true

"fire was going virtually on every floor" Note the Virtually, True

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

"The flames were coming out of every window of that building" Not true.

Fully invloved does not mean everything is on fire, champ. Repeat it to yourself.

Or type "debunker" again, that you are good at.

eta: EdX, was the building fully involved in fire or not? Why can't you just answer the question?

lulz, under the definition I just gave you "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."

YES IT WAS.

ergo has never heard of smoke, I guess, fantastic.

 

[ergo]

Why won't you answer the question I'm asking? Will you admit that you are calling the 911 firefighters liars? I just want you to admit something most truthers refuse to do.

Where have I said they are liars? You're the one contradicting what the firefighters above have stated.

I honestly don't know what to believe. On the one hand, there's zero visual evidence that building 7 was every fully involved in fire, nor does NIST ever claim this. On the other hand, several firefighters, along with 9/11 bedunkers, insist that it was. Whose testimony should we believe, Ed? Were the firefighters quoted above "mistaken"?

 

[Sabretooth]

EdX, was the building fully involved in fire or not? Why can't you just answer the question?

If it was, why doesn't NIST mention it, and why didn't Steve Spak take pictures of it?

If it wasn't, why do the above firefighters claim that it was?

Just answer the question. It's not hard.

I can only assume that the almighty ergo has me on ignore at this point. Does someone want to re-post my explanation (post# 100) so he can get his learn on?

 

[ergo]

"the building was fully involved in fire." TRUE

"with fire on nearly all floors" Note the Nearly, true

"fire was going virtually on every floor" Note the Virtually, True

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

"The flames were coming out of every window of that building" Not true.

Fully involved does not mean everything is on fire, champ. Repeat it to yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where have I said they are liars? You're the one contradicting what the firefighters above have stated.

I honestly don't know what to believe. On the one hand, there's zero visual evidence that building 7 was every fully involved in fire, nor does NIST ever claim this. On the other hand, several firefighters, along with 9/11 bedunkers, insist that it was. Whose testimony should we believe, Ed? Were the firefighters quoted above "mistaken"?

Well, that is because you are using a truther version of "fully involved," which I've pointed out is stupid.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now that is the kind of money response I have come to expect from a truther and troll like ergo.

roll your eyes at this:

"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."

 

[NoahFence]

EdX, was the building fully involved in fire or not? Why can't you just answer the question?


Yes it was.

If it was, why doesn't NIST mention it, and why didn't Steve Spak take pictures of it?

NIST didn't mention it because they wanted to mess with your head 10 years later, and they were in on it.

If it wasn't, why do the above firefighters claim that it was?

See Above

 

[ergo]

Well, that is because you are using a truther version of "fully involved," which I've pointed out is stupid.

You also are stating that some of those firefighters are stupid, too.

 

[NoahFence]

Where have I said they are liars? You're the one contradicting what the firefighters above have stated.

I honestly don't know what to believe. On the one hand, there's zero visual evidence that building 7 was every fully involved in fire, nor does NIST ever claim this. On the other hand, several firefighters, along with 9/11 bedunkers, insist that it was. Whose testimony should we believe, Ed? Were the firefighters quoted above "mistaken"?

Yes or no -

(yea right)

Was there a firefighter who was tasked with going into WTC 7, and paying a visit to every single floor of the building to see if it was on fire?

 

[ergo]

roll your eyes at this:

"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."

So the firefighters quoted above are wrong? Were they lying?

"the building was fully involved in fire."

"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"

 

[NoahFence]

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:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_424124da840e867050.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Quoting in case ergo has Sabertooth on ignore.

Ergo - Sabertooth IS a firefighter.

 

[NoahFence]

So the firefighters quoted above are wrong? Were they lying?

"the building was fully involved in fire."

"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"

You people are proof that humanity has a long way to go.

 

[ergo]

Why do 9/11 bedunkers deny the very sources that they quote, supposedly in support of their arguments?

 

[The Big Dog]

You also are stating that some of those firefighters are stupid, too.

That is curious, sport, I addressed those and your response was to post a little silly face.

Hmm, you have power surges under the bridges or something?

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

This is wrong. Let me repeat, champ, this is what "fully involved" means:

"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."

Learn it, live it, love it.

Or type "bedunker" and post smilies! YAY Trutherizing!

 

[NoahFence]

Why do 9/11 bedunkers deny the very sources that they quote, supposedly in support of their arguments?

Project much?

 

[ergo]

This is wrong. Let me repeat, champ, this is what "fully involved" means:

I understand what you're saying about "fully involved". What I'm pointing out to you is that several firefighters, and Steve Spak, claimed that the entire building was burning. All forty-seven floors.

Are they mistaken, or are they lying?