The Doc vs Pdoherty - Debate Underway

Enigma:

We need a finger waving smilie for such an occasion.

Belz:
lolololololololol

TAM;)
 
Arus808 said:
nice rebut, Doc. Also, stress logically, destroying another building to add more the pile of debris would not help a rescue operation, who would NOW HAVE TO dig through MORE debris to find survivors and/or evidence.

that doesn't make sense at all

If someone was trapped on the fringe of the debris pile from the collapse of wtc 1 under say 7 feet of rubble in an air pocket; and if the "planners" of the collapse of WTC 7 miscalculated and the WTC 7 rubble actually ended up covering that person under more rubble, how would this have helped rescue operations? Wouldn't this just put MORE time into the rescue efforts ,now that the person could be under 14 feet of rubble? or now, DEAD?


his argument fails on logic from the get go.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if I was stuck in an air pocket with a chance of being rescued and was asked my opinion on this plan I would certainly object.
 
Last edited:
If i was a fire fighter and was asked "hey, should we blow up WTC 7 so that it doesn't get in the way of rescuring people from under the debris of WTC 1?"

I'd be like "WTF are you talking about? - blow up a building to help with rescue operations?"


Seriously; if miners were trapped in a mine, do you blow up the mine to try and get them out?


If a boat was sinking, do you add another hole to the boat to help get people off of it?

If your house is on fire, do you go around lighting your curtains and hope it burns a hole through your wall so you can get out?

Thats what his argument boils down to.

Seriously, pdoh is not working with any form of sensible logic; its easy that he's never spoken to any of the firefighters and are only of course, relying on video and photographs and not "listening" to the statements made by those ON scene.
 
PDoh's argument is insane.

Take his premise, that they took down WTC7 ON PURPOSE to avoid harm to others at the site. This then, must require that the explosives and what not had to be planted in a burning building, near the site of two previous building collapses, in a matter of 5-7 hours. As well, it would be illogical for them to need or want to cover up such a thing. Even if they did try to make the hundreds of firemen etc...keep silent on such a thing, given the benign reasons for collapsing the building, I think the "Ban" on telling people would not last very long. I actually can't believe PDoh is actually trying to argue such an insane proposition. Then again...yes I can...it is PDoh we are talking about.

TAM:)
 
Fire Chief: Well I have been talking to the Demo people and Silverstein, and we have all agreed, for the safety of the rescue teams, we are gonna bring WTC7 down...but don't tell anyone.

Firemen: Why not?

Fire Chief: Because...umm...because....ummm...ask Silverstein.

TAM:)
 
Pdoh!:
They weren't trained structural engineers. The collapse of 7 was a first in history. It remains unexplained. A collapse zone is standard round all high rise fires. The difference in this case was thousands needed rescuing
Click to expand...
Further to what others have said above:
This makes no sense. Thousands needed rescueing but the instability of WTC 7 threatened the rescuers so they dropped WTC 7 so that they could then continue the rescue.
In collapses the rescuers go to great pains not to disturb the rubble unless absolutly necessary. If one just starts taking using heavy equipment right away you run the best chance of shifting the rubble and crushing those still trapped. Using explosives would be right out as this would involve even less ability to predict the effect of the rubble and worse still dropping a 47 storey office building is likely to ensure that you have just turned many trapped survivors into victims.
 
Another angle of questioning should be to ask what other methods are available to stabilize buildings in danger of collapse, how long they take to implement, and why they were not used.
 
T.A.M. said:
well at least I do not end every sentence with "Eh?" like alot of my more western fellow countrymen...lol

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Hey! My buddy's father was born and raised an Ottawa valley boy and literally ended every sentence with "eh!".

Ottawa is definatly east where I am.

We also have a Newf working with us who uses that term more than the rest of us and one cannot get much futher east than his home town. (named after a ship's captain whose last name is the word used for a device used by women for self pleasure. I imagine T.A.M. knows of this town):)
 
Another point people fail to realize is that the TALLEST skyscraper building EVER demolished on record was the J.L. Hudson Department Store at 439 feet tall.

WTC7 was 750
WTC 1 and 2 were roughly 1360.
 
Just suppose, for a minute, that he's right, and the building was brought down to facilitate the rescue. (How, in that time, given it couldn't have been pre-planned, I have no idea, but leave that aside for now....)

So what?

Rolfe.
 
Kent1 said:
Another point people fail to realize is that the TALLEST skyscraper building EVER demolished on record was the J.L. Hudson Department Store at 439 feet tall.

WTC7 was 750
WTC 1 and 2 were roughly 1360.
Click to expand...


Good point. In addition to them being, supposedly, the tallest buildings ever demolished, WTV was not only 70% taller than the Hudson but also on fire and already , chaotically damaged and its demolition was supposedly set up within hours, according to P.D.

That conjecture simply does not fly!
 
Rolfe said:
Just suppose, for a minute, that he's right, and the building was brought down to facilitate the rescue. (How, in that time, given it couldn't have been pre-planned, I have no idea, but leave that aside for now....)

So what?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so what? Why go to the bother of covering up something that can be explained away in a perfectly sensible and reasonable manner?

Why this massive cover up? Why not just say on the day “We are going to bring down an unstable building as it is hampering rescue operations”?

BTW it looks like the LC guys are falling over themselves to offer support and advice to Phod.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10201

Edit, go to it Doc, great posts :)
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Exactly, so what? Why go to the bother of covering up something that can be explained away in a perfectly sensible and reasonable manner?

Why this massive cover up? Why not just say on the day “We are going to bring down an unstable building as it is hampering rescue operations”?

BTW it looks like the LC guys are falling over themselves to offer support and advice to Phod.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10201

Edit, go to it Doc, great posts :)
Click to expand...
[conjecture]
The only way it could have been brought down by demolitions is if they were pre-planted. If they were pre-planted in WTC 7, then it becomes arguable that they were pre-planted in WTC 1 & 2
[/conjecture]
 
I like how Pdoh in his first sentence managed to misrepresent the topic. It's not why 7 was brought down by CD; it's if 7 was brought down by CD.

I also like how he complained that Doc's opening statement didn't address his opening statement. It's like Pdoh doesn't know what an opening statement is for!

Pdoh needs to do a lot better referencing of his sources. I'd call him to task for that. I may not be an expert of the substance of the debate, but I spent 4 1/2 years as a debate judge. I know a good debate style when I see one, and Pdoh just doesn't have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom