WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The following image is taken from the firefighters webpage. It referred to the NIST fire-collapse causation. Do you think the firefighters agree with you?
[qimg]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4184/rottop00168.png[/qimg]

How can they not, I'm a certified firefighter whose got FF certificates to prove it. Hell I even got FEMA certificates!

Those directing their attention to me clearly don't have FF certificates.

 

[femr2]

You should watch out claiming any eye witness testimony that is contrary to your position is simply a matter of heat-of-battle misinterpretation

I very much doubt you have a clue as to my position, even though it's been stated numerous times.

You just make assumptions. Poor.

because the next time you bring up any report of explosions as evidence of explosives we might simply laugh at you

The next time ? LOL. I don't cite witness reports. All far too conflicting and prone to misinterpretation.

 

[femr2]

The video evidence coupled with the Firefighters' statements hold better water than your claims.

What claims would they be eh ?

I've just highlighted several problems with the witness statement you posted.

Not looking good for your hand-waving right now.

A huge hole, so what? When the Titanic...

You're talking about the Titanic now ? ROFL.

struck an iceberg @ 11:40 PM on April 14, 1912 the carpenter who was ordered by Capt. Smith to sound the ship. Later Thomas Andrews told Capt. Smith that a 300 foot gash was caused by the iceberg.

In 1998, a team went down to the Titanic to see if they could peer through the mud, they did & only found out that the damage from the iceberg was minimal, about the size of a fridge.

Which supports your ranting, how ?

I'm not saying that the 20 foot hole was minimal, but it was enough to cause serious damage to the building & compromised it's structural intergrity.

A 20 storey fire, no wait, 20 storey hole, no wait, 20 FOOT hole ? Chinese wispers

If only you Truthers would learn to read history, take notes, study & look for the evidence instead of assuming everything.

ROFL.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

All far too conflicting and prone to misinterpretation.

Truther Translation:

"I can't understand or read what the witnesses describe because I can't inerpret any of their statements."

If you went to court tomorrow because you hit someone with your car & witnesses saw you hit that person & then drove away. Don't you think that they would testify against you for hitting a person? Yes they would!

As far as damage to your car from hitting a person is physical evidence of the crime you comitted.

Witness testimony will outweigh hearsay any day!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've just highlighted several problems with the witness statement you posted.

How can they be "problems" when firefighters are professionals & you're not?

Explain that 1 to me!

See the problem with you is that you ignore the evidence given to you. You think that witness statements don't matter. Well they do in court!

 

[femr2]

TIf you went to court tomorrow because you hit someone with your car...

Scrabbling around with random allegories is not making you look any less inept Chewy.

Interesting eyewitness statement you posted though. Shows how prone to misinterpretation and chinese whispers such things are.

Good work !

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Scrabbling around with random allegories is not making you look any less inept Chewy.

Interesting eyewitness statement you posted though. Shows how prone to misinterpretation and chinese whispers such things are.

Good work !

What "misinterpretation" is there?

Boyle said there was a huge hole, yes there was a huge hole as indicated by the witness statements & photographic evidence.

So to say that Boyle is "wrong", when he's not, only shows how you "misinterpreted" his statement when the photographic evidence proves him right.

You're not going to get anywhere without evidence to prove Boyle wrong. Bitching about it isn't helping you either.

 

[Myriad]

"The firefighters webpage?" You mean FDNY (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/home2.shtml)? IAFF (http://www.iaff.org/)? Firehouse.com? Fire fighters online (http://www.firefightersonline.com/)? Maybe Firefighters for Christ (http://firefighters.org/) who one might expect are perfectly willing to believe in miracles?

No, of course not, if you're telling the truth at all about that cartoon, you're referring to the "firefighters for truth" web page, which has 91 firefighter signatures on a petition, not a one of whom was on the scene on 9/11.

I wonder if they should be told that some of their compatriots in the "movement" are telling the world that the FDNY firefighters who were on the scene all lost their heads in the heat of battle to the point that they couldn't tell which building smoke was coming from for seven hours.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Either Chewy has stepped up his game a bit, or femr2 has stepped down his. Or, it appears, both. Very curious. That whole "making a lick of sense" thing you had going for a while wasn't working out for you, femr?

 

[femr2]

How can they be "problems" when firefighters are professionals & you're not?

Explain that 1 to me!

ROFL.

Because the eyewitness statement is, to put a word on it...erronious.

It was that persons impression at the time, that we subsequently know was inaccurate, as I highlighted to you a little earlier.

Quite why you're having trouble understanding is, well, I suppose it just says a lot about you really.

See the problem with you is that you ignore the evidence given to you. You think that witness statements don't matter. Well they do in court!

ROFL.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6795024&postcount=593

 

[twinstead]

I very much doubt you have a clue as to my position, even though it's been stated numerous times.

You just make assumptions. Poor.

I know your position; you think the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious. You are in the minority.

The next time ? LOL. I don't cite witness reports. All far too conflicting and prone to misinterpretation.

Yea, I might be thinking of somebody else. Sorry. But, you do know that eye witnesses DO have a place in any investigation, right? Especially if they are experts. You cannot had wave away their observations like you do.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Because the eyewitness statement is, to put a word on it...erronious.

But that doesn't explain why you makes claims to something when you weren't there standing beside Boyle.

Either you were there or you weren't. Which is it?

 

[femr2]

What "misinterpretation" is there?

Jebus.

It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

Not a third of it.
Not in the middle of it.

Hey, maybe he's referring to some other 20 storey hole in the building

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jebus.



[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/68492381.png[/qimg]

Not a third of it.
Not in the middle of it.

Actually I can see a gash going right down the middle in that picture. So Boyle's right & you're wrong!

Keep building strawmen, the more you make, the bigger the fire gets when I light them!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dan Nigro in his own words:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Femr, your claims are without merit to this discussion. You haven't provided evidence!

 

[femr2]

you do know that eye witnesses DO have a place in any investigation, right? Especially if they are experts. You cannot had wave away their observations like you do.

I can highlight problems with their statements if I have access to visual information which refutes their claims.

Think about the number of eyewitness statements that conflict about this event...

...that inspection of the video clarifies.

People at the location simply didn't have access to a lot of visual information that we do now.

Look at that invisible missile !!11!!

 

[triforcharity]

At the height of WTC1 I measured a speed of the wind of about 9m/s. That's not that slow.

I wasn't talking about 1WTC. I was talking about 7WTC.

Please follow along.

 

[triforcharity]

The following image is taken from the firefighters webpage. It referred to the NIST fire-collapse causation. Do you think the firefighters agree with you?
[qimg]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4184/rottop00168.png[/qimg]

What firefighters' page? You posted an image from Imageshack.

Citation needed.

 

[carlitos]

OK, but then I have to take it one step further. If you think you have evidence that NIST mis-interpreted the visual information for WTC7, and you think this is important, why won't you tell them?

Not my bag. If someone wants to pick up any of the numerous issues I've highlighted with the NIST reports, they are welcome to do so.

As I have stated elsewhere, the impotence of 9/11 researchers nit-picking the general account of events appears to be a feature, not a bug. At the very least, have you picked up any skills that people are willing to pay you for?

 

[triforcharity]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the weather at WTC7 was pretty similar to the weather at WTC1, you think ?

No, not at all. I do not agree one bit. 1WTC did not have turbulent flows of wind going around it from other buildings, since the area was WELL above any of the surrounding buildings. (aprox. 1300 feet up versus aprox 750 feet)

Now, where do you get this wind speed of 9m/s from? This equates to about 20 mph. I used this to get the historical data for Manhattan.

Perhaps it was snowing all the way over there at WTC7 ?

Well, with your photo analysis skills, I bet you would conclude that.

 

[femr2]

No, not at all. I do not agree one bit.

Wow. Must be a Saturday thing. Folk roun'ere making no sense at all

You really don't think the weather at WTC7 was the same as the weather at WTC1. Riiight.

1WTC did not have turbulent flows of wind going around it from other buildings, since the area was WELL above any of the surrounding buildings. (aprox. 1300 feet up versus aprox 750 feet)

That's fair enough, though I'd suggest it makes little difference to the potential strength of the prevailing wind, perhaps even increasing it in places.

Now, where do you get this wind speed of 9m/s from? This equates to about 20 mph. I used this to get the historical data for Manhattan.

You must be getting confused. I don't *get this wind speed of 9m/s*. Achimspok measured it.

Well, with your photo analysis skills, I bet you would conclude that.

Infantile. Go out and have a few (more) beers.