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

[NoahFence]

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?

Neither.

They were talking casually.

Like if you're driving down the highway, and some guy flys past you going 92MPH. You're going to tell your buddies that "some dude flew past me going at least a hundred".

But you know that.

You're just looking for any little thing to nitpick in the desperate hope that someone somewhere will find you intelligent and/or clever.

Ain't never gonna happen.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

Not really. Ergo is a representative of a movement that is completely marginalized and politically impotent.

Short of killing or incarcerating anyone who shows signs of twooferism, our society has moved as far beyond them as we can without "becoming what we have beheld".

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Uh I responded to that very claim and you posted a "smiley".

Now you want me to respond to a false dichotomy?

Let me make it VERY simple:

WTC7 was "fully involved."

The definition of fully involved does NOT MEAN the entire building was burning.

The entire building was not burning, although flames, heat AND smoke are so widespread that internal access was prohibited.

That should clear up your liiinnngggeeerrrriiiinnnnggggg confusion.

 

[ergo]

WTC7 was "fully involved."

The definition of fully involved does NOT MEAN the entire building was burning.

The entire building was not burning, although flames, heat AND smoke are so widespread that internal access was prohibited.

Right. So these accounts are wrong, then:

"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"

Of course, you can nitpick over the words "nearly" and "virtually". If you want. (Bedunkers have in the past made very strong distinctions over the word "essentially" in another argument )

But what about the other three? According to your definition, they must be wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

Right. So these accounts are wrong, then:

"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"

Of course, you can nitpick over the words "nearly" and "virtually". If you want. (Bedunkers have in the past made very strong distinctions over the word "essentially" in another argument )

But what about the other three? According to your definition, they must be wrong.

Just stop it. You're wrong, as usual, and can't stomach the idea that you are. It's friggin pathetic.

 

[ergo]

And after all this, we still have no evidence of these fires on nearly every floor.

 

[NoahFence]

And after all this, we still have no evidence of these fires on nearly every floor.

Yes we do.

Just nothing that you're willing to accept.

Good thing that you don't matter.

 

[Sabretooth]

Could someone direct me to the nearest bridge? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Right. So these accounts are wrong, then:

"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"

Of course, you can nitpick over the words "nearly" and "virtually". If you want. (Bedunkers have in the past made very strong distinctions over the word "essentially" in another argument )

But what about the other three? According to your definition, they must be wrong.

Uh I responded to that very claim and you posted a "smiley".

Let me make it VERY simple:

WTC7 was "fully involved."

The definition of fully involved does NOT MEAN the entire building was burning.

The entire building was not burning, although flames, heat AND smoke are so widespread that internal access was prohibited.

 

[NoahFence]

I mean, how can you even make this up?

ERGO posts this:

Right. So these accounts are wrong, then:

"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"

And then says this:

And after all this, we still have no evidence of these fires on nearly every floor.

And they wonder why they're looked at as a miniscule, irrelevant and stupid subset of society.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Could someone direct me to the nearest bridge? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I think we're on a bridge, and ergo is underneath it.

 

[ergo]

Uh I responded to that very claim and you posted a "smiley".

Yes, you said only one of those statements was wrong. See? Right here. At least three of those other quotes state that the building was fully involved in fire.

It's your own semantic silliness that you're running into. Not mine. I'm just chasing you around your own tail.

Bedunkers are quoting firefighters and others who have stated that the entire building was on fire. Now 16.5 is trying to tell me that it's MY mistake. That "fully involved" doesn't mean "fully on fire".

I'm not the one making those statements. Get it?

Probably not.

 

[NoahFence]

Where there's smoke!

That's the south side of the building.

Now, I know this is a real stupid question, but I'm a real stupid person. So I'll ask anyway.

Is that proof enough for you?

 

[ergo]

But it's silly of me to get into a power struggle with a 9/11 bedunker. It's like getting into a power struggle with a six-year-old. You never, ever win.

 

[000063]

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

I guess that makes NIST mistaken too, then.

False link. The NIST report was the result of several years of study by a government agency, not some guy who was personally and emotionally involved speaking ex tempore a month after the event. And you know it. It's a clever trick, to try and derail the thread onto the question of whether NIST was right, to avoid the question of whether McCarthey is.

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?

Gainsay, incredulity, and implication by question. No actual facts or assertions.

 

[ergo]

So, at least we now have it established that building 7 was never fully involved in fire. There's no visual evidence of it, NIST never mentions it, and now even 9/11 bedunkers are saying that it was only some floors.

So I guess some of the firefighters Mark Roberts quotes got it wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm just chasing you around your own tail.

lol wut.

I guess I have to simplify:

WTC7 was "fully involved."

"Fully involved" does NOT MEAN the entire building was burning.

The entire building was not burning, although flames, heat AND smoke were so widespread that fire fighters were not allowed to go into the building.

Smoke is very dangerous in fires.

Fire, Bad! Smoke, also bad!

Clear enough for you?

 

[NoahFence]

But it's silly of me to get into a power struggle with a 9/11 bedunker. It's like getting into a power struggle with a six-year-old. You never, ever win.

Looking at the photo I provided - if YOU looked at that, would you say the building was "nearly fully involved"?

Please. Just once, be honest.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, at least we now have it established that building 7 was never fully involved in fire. There's no visual evidence of it, NIST never mentions it, and now even 9/11 bedunkers are saying that it was only some floors.

So I guess some of the firefighters Mark Roberts quotes got it wrong.

And that is what it is all about for ergo. lulz.

 

[NoahFence]

So, at least we now have it established that building 7 was never fully involved in fire. There's no visual evidence of it, NIST never mentions it, and now even 9/11 bedunkers are saying that it was only some floors.

So I guess some of the firefighters Mark Roberts quotes got it wrong.

No visual evidence? I just gave you visual evidence.

Now you're simply lying.