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

[000063]

...

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. )

No, you wanted evidence the fires were "fully involved". We want to know what your definition of "fully involved" is, in order to attempt to meet that standard. Even after this has been explained to you, you just quote someone else's statements on how bad the fires were, without actually stating you would consider those "fully involved". Which gives you dodge room later.

Even when people try to prove things on your terms, you don't want to say what those terms are, you intellectually dishonest sophist.

God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

The comparison to God, of course, is only in the context of you (and other Truthers) running a metaphorical rigged game, not in any matter of omnipotence or perception. Quite the opposite.

 

[ergo]

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

So 16.5 is agreeing now that those firefighters were wrong, as was Steve Spak. He doesn't want to use those words, because it's a bedunker source, but he has stated repeatedly that fully involved does NOT mean fully involved in fire, contrary to what Steve Spak claimed.

Yup. Good enough for me. This at least explains why there are no photos of a raging inferno in WTC7. There wasn't any.

 

[KreeL]

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.

Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'. Flames were shooting out the windows which blew out from the 'full involvement'. Fire covered floors 11-16 and included the cores. Real NYFD firemen went in and 6 hours later the fire was out. It did not collapse. If it had happened on 9/11 with the new non-twoofer physics, it would have collapsed years ago.

Edited to add: I don't remember reading about any firemen saying the the tower was going to collapse at any point. Go figure.

 

[NoahFence]

This at least explains why there are no photos of a raging inferno in WTC7. There wasn't any.

You lie.

The question is, why?

 

[NoahFence]

Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'. Flames were shooting out the windows which blew out from the 'full involvement'. Fire covered floors 11-16 and included the cores. Real NYPD firemen went in and 6 hours later the fire was out. It did not collapse. If it had happened on 9/11 with the new non-twoofer physics, it would have collapsed years ago.

So your definition of "fully involved" is a 110 story building on fire on 5 floors?

Why am I not surprised.

 

[LSSBB]

Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'. Flames were shooting out the windows which blew out from the 'full involvement'. Fire covered floors 11-16 and included the cores. Real NYPD firemen went in and 6 hours later the fire was out. It did not collapse. If it had happened on 9/11 with the new non-twoofer physics, it would have collapsed years ago.

Think. There was nothing to fight the fires with in WTC7

 

[000063]

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.

Ironically, he likes to call us out on alleged nitpicking.

 

[The Big Dog]

So 16.5 is agreeing now that those firefighters were wrong, as was Steve Spak. He doesn't want to use those words, because it's a bedunker source, but he has stated repeatedly that fully involved does NOT mean fully involved in fire, contrary to what Steve Spak claimed.

Yup. Good enough for me. This at least explains why there are no photos of a raging inferno in WTC7. There wasn't any.

Bwhahaha!!! Wow, in your mind you scored your little point, you are in end zone after scoring the game winning touch down, and here comes the cute little cheerleader who wouldn't give you the time of day in high school, and here comes He-Man and Battle Cat, and you ride off the field in triumph!

In reality, you are in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital, because you were knocked senseless in the first quarter.

/Top of the World Ma!

 

[332nd]

Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'. Flames were shooting out the windows which blew out from the 'full involvement'. Fire covered floors 11-16 and included the cores. Real NYFD firemen went in and 6 hours later the fire was out. It did not collapse. If it had happened on 9/11 with the new non-twoofer physics, it would have collapsed years ago.

Once again you're leaving out a major part of what happened on 9/11. Why do you do this? Why are you so afraid of facts?

 

[ergo]

Bwhahaha!!! Wow, in your mind you scored your little point, you are in end zone after scoring the game winning touch down, and here comes the cute little cheerleader who wouldn't give you the time of day in high school, and here comes He-Man and Battle Cat, and you ride off the field in triumph!

In reality, you are in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital, because you were knocked senseless in the first quarter.

/Top of the World Ma!

Well, little points add up to bigger things later.

This way, we won't need to suffer little Noah Fences running around saying "There were RAGING INFERNOS in WTC 7!! LOOK AT THE GUDDAMN SMOKE !!!!"

Which is ... something.

 

[NoahFence]

Ironically, he likes to call us out on alleged nitpicking.

Nah, that's just projecting.

He knows that's one of the things they do, so he thinks its clever if he throws it back at us. Doesn't matter to him that it's totally inaccurate.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, little points add up to bigger things later.

This way, we won't need to suffer little Noah Fences running around saying "There were RAGING INFERNOS in WTC 7!! LOOK AT THE GUDDAMN SMOKE !!!!"

Which is ... something.

That something is the truth.

UNLESS

Are you under the impression there were teams of heat-resistent ninjas with smoke machines strewn all over the south side of the building?

It's either / or.

Smoke machines, or a raging inferno. Which one is it, boy?

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, little points add up to bigger things later.

Well you are as close as I have ever seen to solving the riddle of the collapse of Castle Greyskull.

But for us back on Earth? Not so much.

 

[332nd]

So 16.5 is agreeing now that those firefighters were wrong, as was Steve Spak. He doesn't want to use those words, because it's a bedunker source, but he has stated repeatedly that fully involved does NOT mean fully involved in fire, contrary to what Steve Spak claimed.

Yup. Good enough for me. This at least explains why there are no photos of a raging inferno in WTC7. There wasn't any.

No, fully involved in fire is what they saw & what they meant. Its been explained to you several times. Fully involved means that the fire, heat, & smoke are so widespread that the firemen can't access the structure until fire streams are applied.

 

[KreeL]

Once again you're leaving out a major part of what happened on 9/11. Why do you do this? Why are you spend afraid of facts?

What did I leave out? Please rephrase the last question because it's gibberish.

 

[000063]

No, fully involved in fire is what they saw & what they meant. Its been explained to you several times. Fully involved means that the fire, heat, & smoke are so widespread that the firemen can't access the structure until fire streams are applied.

I love how he studiously avoided giving his definition, and when he tried to cite the firefighter's opinion, he's instantly proved wrong and has to studiously avoid that too.

 

[NoahFence]

What did I leave out? Please rephrase the last question because it's gibberish.

Two big giant silver things crashing into buildings.

 

[KreeL]

Think. There was nothing to fight the fires with in WTC7

Since when? Directly across the street WTC6 was a raging inferno. Pictures show firemen fighting that fire with, gasp, a firetruck. The wind was blowing all the smoke across the street and up the side of WTC7 (hence the smoke picture shown by another poster here). Ironically, WTC6 did not collapse from the inferno. Again, go figure.

 

[332nd]

What did I leave out?

That it wasn't just fire that caused the collapse. Think real hard about it. (Hint, how did those fires start on 9/11)

Please rephrase the last question because it's gibberish.

Fixed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since when? Directly across the street WTC3 was a raging inferno. Pictures show firemen fighting that fire with, gasp, a firetruck. The wind was blowing all the smoke across the street and up the side of WTC7 (hence the smoke picture shown by another poster here). Ironically, WTC3 did not collapse from the inferno. Again, go figure.

Hee hee hee! That is some magic wind!

Wonder if kreel knows there is a VIDEO that shows where the smoke is actually coming from.