'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It wasn't leaning....

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
Click to expand...

http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/captain-chris-boyle

TAM:)
 
Miragememories said:
There is no urgency.

I am still waiting for the NIST to respond to Dr. Greening's paper.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html

The NIST asked for public comment on their preliminary WTC7 Final Report.

Dr. Greening quickly complied.

In his paper, he questioned the validity of the numbers the NIST punched in for the fuel load used in their simulation and the NIST argument that column 79 would fail up to the East Penthouse.

Dr. Greening could not understand why the undamaged floors above floor 13 did not stabilize column 79 for a longer period than the 1 second the NIST allowed after the column supposedly began buckling.

If the NIST can't be bothered to respond to Dr. Greening, I see no urgency in submitting a paper of my own.

MM
Click to expand...

1. Dr. Greening is a chemical engineer and thus not especially qualified

2. Despite his doubts about the draft report he showed and still (AFAIK) shows no sign of doubting the 3 WTC collapses were a result of the airliner impacts and resulting fires

3. As someone else pointed out he objected to the DRAFT report, has he indicated he did not agree with the FINAL report?
 
cooperman said:
How did this bulge relate to the initiating event?

Is there any photographic or video evidence for this bulge?
Click to expand...

Is Chief Hayden lying?

Steel buildings collapse in uncontrolled fire. Firemen know this.
 
game rules

Hi, OK I am new to this game. What is the point we are trying to make?
On 9-11-2001 I knew the building was going to fall down because my TV told me hours before it happened. I watched the whole thing again the other day on a video. Everyone has saw these videos before right?
They say things like "the building is leaning slightly to the south" And when it goes down "The building fell slightly toward the south"
I think we have the rules back-wards. I should not have to convince someone that the building fell because of fire. If you don't think fire caused the collapse you should show me a video where another cause can be identified. Do people really think WTC7 was allowed to burn all day and then when it was already certain the building would be a total loss it was destroyed by other means?
As far as and theory goes WTC7 is totally unimportant. It does not tell me WHO or WHY. HOW will never be as important.
Do not focus on what is not important.
I totally get lost when people say the accepted version of events is incorrect and then try to prove it by disecting the parts that don't matter as far as proving their case go. It does not matter about the mechanics of the damage produced by the attack. All you have to prove is who planned it and executed it. If you could also provide a motive that would be nice.
Don't say there were no planes. I saw them.
Don't say it was a ray gun.
Who flew the plane, and Why. To me this seems simple enough. If in your mind you think you saw bombs going off OK. I can promise you any bombs would have been placed by the same group who flew the aircraft. I didn't see any bombs but that is totally unimportant. WHO and WHY are all that matters. All this how hot is fire, what broke first, how fast do bricks fall stuff is fluff. The final result is all that matters. Who do I go after with my M-4?
Can anyone direct me a link to where these questions are answered where words like they/them are replaced by John Smith LtGen USAF (just an example)
 
Miragememories said:
Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;


Originally Posted by JREF forum-Thread 10-story hole in WTC7-Page 106
"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"
Click to expand...

MM
Click to expand...

The reason why MM failed to include a link is that this was and undocumented claim by the infamous Christoper7, is that the concrete core guy?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3265811&postcount=4180
 
cooperman said:
The problem with the column 79 theory is this:

People expected 7 to collapse all day. People on the scene described the collapse as "imminent". One firefighter said "There is no way to stop it". Debunkers will tell us that every man and his dog knew that the collapse was imminent and it was no surprise. Well if that is the case, how did they all know on the afternoon of 9/11 that column 79 would fail? If it hadn't the building would have stood.

You describe it as a design flaw. Did the FDNY know about this design flaw? If not, how did they KNOW it would collapse?
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy, the FDNY did not have to know which column exactly was failing or why to perceive the building was unstable. It is also possible that other parts of the building were unstable but not lead directly to the collapse.
 
cooperman said:
The windsor tower was an uncontrolled fire in a steel building?
Click to expand...

Yes, partially.

The top section, you know, the part that completly collapsed, was in fact, a steel framed structure.

Your knowledge of fire in steel buildings seems to elude you.
 
Cooperman:

No comment about Captain Chris Boyle's statement above?

TAM:)
 
triforcharity said:
Yes, partially.

The top section, you know, the part that completly collapsed, was in fact, a steel framed structure.

Your knowledge of fire in steel buildings seems to elude you.
Click to expand...

How can a part completely collapse? You mean it partially collapsed?
 
cooperman said:
Can you name any apart from the ones that fell on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Why would you discount the 2 most important buildings that would weigh the heaviest on the minds of the firefighters looking at WTC7? I doubt very much any firefighters on the scene thought of The Windsor Tower or The Kader Toy Factory. WTCs 1 & 2, however, would be at the forefront of their decision making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom